[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21710-21715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09093]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 75
[Docket ID ED-2025-OS-0020]
Proposed Priorities and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental
Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education
Choice, and Returning Education to the States
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes three initial and urgent priorities and
related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant
programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The
Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a
particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component
parts. These priorities and definitions are intended to replace the
Secretary's supplemental priorities published in the Federal Register
on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) and all other agency-wide
supplemental priorities published prior to January 20, 2025. However,
those priorities remain in effect for notices inviting applications
(NIAs) published before the U.S. Department of Education (Department)
finalizes the proposed priorities in this document.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 20, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation or
cannot otherwise submit your comments via regulations.gov, please
contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments by fax or by email, or
comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that the
Department does not receive duplicate copies, please submit your
comments only once. Additionally, 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.''
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to generally make all
comments received from members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
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: Zachary Rogers, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 7W213, Washington, DC 20202-
6450. Telephone: (202) 260-1144. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priorities and definitions. Please submit your comments
only once so that we do not receive duplicate copies. The Department
will not accept comments submitted after the comment period closes.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from these proposed priorities and definitions. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of
the program.
For your comments to have maximum effect in developing the final
priorities and definitions, we provide the following tips:
Be concise but support your claims.
Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using
profanity.
Refer to specific sections and subsections of the proposed
priorities and definitions throughout your comments, particularly in
any headings that are used to organize your submission.
Arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed
priorities and definitions.
Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed
priorities or definitions and support these reasons with data-driven
evidence, including the depth and breadth of your personal and
professional experiences.
Where you disagree with the proposed priorities or
definitions, suggest alternatives, including revised priority or
definition language, and your rationale for the alternative suggestion.
In instances where individual submissions appear to be duplicates
or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a writing campaign,
the Department may choose to post to Regulations.gov one representative
sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign.
The Department will consider these comments along with all other
comments received. In instances where individual submissions are
bundled together (submitted as a single document or packaged together),
the Department will post all of the substantive comments included in
the submissions along with the total comment count for that document or
package to Regulations.gov. A well-supported comment is often more
informative to the agency than multiple form letters.
[[Page 21711]]
Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to
Regulations.gov and may be referred to the appropriate authorities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about the proposed priorities and definitions by accessing
Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, 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 this document. 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.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, 6301 et seq., 5 U.S.C.
311 et seq.
Proposed Priorities: This document contains three proposed
priorities.
Proposed Priority 1: Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy
Background: Recent test scores consistently reveal that American
students are struggling to meet grade-level reading standards. The
latest results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), which showed that 4th and 8th grade students are lagging far
behind in literacy, highlight the urgent need to address this critical
issue. Reading scores have reached historic lows, with the most notable
drops observed among students in the bottom quartile of performers.\1\
Despite billions of dollars in annual federal education funding, these
scores show no signs of improvement, even with record investments in
programs intended to enhance the educational experience of American
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). ``Explore Results of the
2024 NAEP Reading Assessment.'' https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal education spending must now prioritize a vital and
foundational goal: ensuring that every student in America becomes
proficient in reading. Effective evidence-based literacy instruction
should be supported by strong or moderate evidence that relates to
explicit, systematic, and intentional instruction in phonological
awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language structure, reading
fluency, and reading comprehension.
It is essential that taxpayer dollars focus on initiatives that
directly benefit students through effective literacy instruction and
ensure that educator pipelines at the postsecondary level keep
evidence-based literacy at the forefront while preparing the educators
of tomorrow. It is time for the United States to refocus its education
investments on the most essential skill a student can acquire:
literacy. The ability to read is the foundation for all learning,
unlocking opportunities for academic, professional, and personal
achievement and strengthening critical thinking skills essential to
lifelong success.
Proposed Priority: Projects or proposals to do one or more of the
following:
(a) Advance, increase, or expand evidence-based literacy
instruction (as defined in this notice), or
(b) Focus on evidence-based literacy instruction (as defined in
this notice).
Proposed Priority 2: Expanding Education Choice
Background: When our conventional public education system fails
such a large segment of society, it hinders our national
competitiveness and imperils families and communities. Education choice
empowers parents and families to seek the best learning environment for
their children, fostering innovation in education models that address
the unique needs of students across the country. Education choice
ensures that every child has the opportunity to access a high-quality
education and pursue the American Dream, regardless of their zip code.
Education choice gives parents, who understand their children's
needs best, the ability to make informed decisions about their
children's education paths. For this reason, more than a dozen States
have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs,\2\ allowing
families--rather than the government--to choose the best educational
setting for their children. These States have highlighted the most
promising avenue for education reform: education choice for families
and competition for residentially assigned, government-run public
schools. Today, almost 22 million students can take advantage of
alternatives to conventional public schools through education
choice.\3\ The growing body of rigorous research demonstrates that
well-designed education-choice programs improve student achievement and
cause nearby public schools to improve their performance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Stanford, L., M. Lieberman, & V.A. Ifatusin. (updated 2025).
``Which States Have Private School Choice?'' EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/which-states-have-private-school-choice/2024/01.
\3\ According to EdChoice, ``Nearly 22 million students, or 40%,
now have access to a private school choice program in their state.''
Aldis, A. (2024). ``One Million Students in School Choice Programs,
By the Numbers.'' EdChoice. https://www.edchoice.org/engage/one-million-students-in-school-choice-programs-by-the-numbers/.
\4\ EdChoice (2024), The 123s of School Choice: What the
Research Says about Private School Choice Programs in America, 2024
edition, retrieved from: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-123s-of-School-Choice.pdf and Raymond, M.,
Woodworth, J., Lee, W.F., and Bachofer, S. (2023.) ``As a Matter of
Fact: The National Charter School Study III 2023.'' Center for
Research on Education Outcomes. https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/DECK_CREDO-Report-10-31-23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education choice applies to all stages of learning, including
postsecondary education. Ensuring that students at every age can pursue
an education that aligns with their unique needs and career goals is
crucial in the pursuit of educational freedom. This can be achieved
through flexible options such as competency-based education that allows
students to progress through learning at their own pace, short-term
workforce-aligned programs or three-year or less degrees, and distance
education. Access to education choice in the pursuit of higher
education and career readiness is essential.
It is crucial that the Department prioritize the expansion and
strengthening of education choice programs at every level. By doing so,
we can ensure that all families, regardless of their background or
location, have access to the educational opportunities that best serve
their children's unique needs.
Proposed Priority: Projects or proposals that will do one or more
of the following:
(a) Increase access to public charter schools and other innovative
school models, such as public laboratory schools, public microschools,
course-based choice, or regional academies, which may include one or
more of the following:
(i) Efforts to expand or replicate existing charter schools that
have a record of improving students' academic achievement or have a
specific focus on one or more of the following:
(1) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM),
including computer science,
(2) Career and technical education,
(3) Evidence-based literacy instruction,
(4) Serving students with disabilities and special needs,
(5) Patriotic education, or
[[Page 21712]]
(6) Classical education.
(ii) Multi-year plans to create new charter schools.
(iii) Providing Technical Assistance to new or existing charter
schools related to authorization, operation, construction, or other
relevant areas, including navigating State and local statutes and
regulations.
(iv) Opening opportunities for new or existing charter schools to
access resources that are currently only available to, or primarily
accessed by, district schools in their area.
(b) Expand access to K-12 school options through open enrollment or
course-based choice.
(c) Support dissemination of information for all education choice
options for students, including private school enrollment, education
savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, home-based learning and
homeschooling, learning pods and co-ops, public charter schools, and
district public schools through open enrollment or course-based choice.
(d) Support state or local development or implementation of
education savings accounts.
(e) Support dissemination of information about education savings
accounts.
(f) Support families in educating students through home-based
education programs, which may include one or more of the following:
(i) Support for online learning communities, or
(ii) Assistance with understanding of State and local requirements
for homeschooling.
(g) Provide or expand access to dual or concurrent enrollment
programs (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(15)) or early college high
schools (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(17)) or other programs where
secondary school students begin earning credit toward a postsecondary
degree or industry-recognized credential prior to high school
graduation.
(h) Expand access to education services that accelerate learning
such as high-impact tutoring.
(i) Expand access to military schools or academies.
(j) Expand access to one or more of the following at the high
school or postsecondary level:
(i) Distance education,
(ii) Competency-based or skills-based education,
(iii) Pre-apprenticeships,
(iv) Apprenticeships,
(iv) Work-based learning, or
(v) Shortened time-to-degree models.
(k) Expand access to part-time coursework and career preparation.
(l) Expand access to programs or coursework that lead to in-demand,
industry-recognized credentials.
Proposed Priority 3: Returning Education to the States
Background: The growth of federal education bureaucracy has created
massive costs, but few educational benefits. Through this priority, the
Secretary is empowering States and Tribes to take the lead in
formulating, developing, and implementing policies that best serve
students, families, and educators within their communities. As the
Department transitions toward closure, it is more critical than ever
for States to rise to the occasion and lead with urgency and vision.
Families deserve an education system that reflects the unique needs
of the communities in which they live. One-size-fits-all mandates from
the federal government create obstacles, limiting the ability of State,
Tribal, local, and institutional leaders to make decisions in the best
interest of their students and their workforce. Furthermore,
centralized planning and oversight power at the federal level adds
unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, siphoning resources away from the
classrooms that need them most.
The 10th Amendment wisely reserved constitutional authority for
education to the States in order to limit federal overreach. Education
decisions should be made at the State level, where local needs,
priorities, and circumstances can be fully understood and addressed.
This priority is a critical step in achieving the broader goal of
educational excellence for all students. States must be empowered to
create opportunity through policies that are more responsive,
effective, and aligned with the needs of their communities, in order to
``empower States to take charge and advocate for and implement what is
best for students, families, and educators in their communities.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/statement-president-trumps-executive-order-return-power-over-education-states-and-local-communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority: Projects or proposals that will be carried out
by one or more of the following:
(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),
(b) Governors,
(c) State workforce development agencies or boards,
(d) State vocational rehabilitation agencies,
(e) State higher education agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C.
1003(22),
(f) Entities identified, designated, or endorsed by a Governor or
chief State education official for purposes of implementing the project
or proposal,
(g) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal
organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational
agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or
(h) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.
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 Definitions
Background: The Secretary proposes the following definitions for
use in any Department discretionary grant program in which the proposed
priorities are used.
Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic
processes, including their principles, their hardware and software
designs, theories, computational thinking, coding, analytics,
applications, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
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
[[Page 21713]]
abilities necessary to apply computation to the digital world.
Computer science does not involve using computers for everyday
tasks, such as browsing the internet or using tools like word
processors, spreadsheets, or presentation software. Instead, it focuses
on creating and developing technology, not just utilizing it.
Evidence framework means an approach to providing a determination
about whether an activity, strategy, or intervention meets each aspect
of the definition of strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined
in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I-II)), as applicable.
(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:
(i) Whether a study is experimental, quasi-experimental, or
neither;
(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically
significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;
(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate
validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to
participants in one condition over another, and that are measured
consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;
(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality,
including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that
could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether
random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and
(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is
appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared
demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant
characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are
statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity
of the study of any changes to the sample over time.
(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by one or
more of the following:
(i) An organization with relevant expertise that has demonstrated
to the Department that it has a rigorous, transparent (i.e., publicly
accessible) process for determining each aspect identified in (a);
(ii) By peer reviewers with statistical expertise who apply an
evidence framework consistent with each aspect identified in (a) in
reviewing support for an applicant's assertion that relevant
information is strong evidence or moderate evidence, as applicable; or
(iii) By the Department or peer reviewers with statistical
expertise who affirm an applicant's assertion that relevant information
is strong evidence or moderate evidence because it is supported by
studies included in the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more of:
(1) a practice guide;
(2) an intervention report; or
(3) an individual evaluation that is publicly validated as being
aligned with strong evidence or moderate evidence, as applicable.
Evidence-based literacy instruction means literacy instruction that
relates to explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in
phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language
structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension; promotes
knowledge-rich materials; and is backed by one or more of the
following, as supported by an evidence framework (as defined in this
notice):
(a) strong evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention
that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving
student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-
designed and well-implemented experimental study (strong evidence as
defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I)) or
(b) moderate evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or
intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on
improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least
one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study
(moderate evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(II)).
Note: In any discretionary grant program competition in which the
definition of ``evidence-based literacy instruction'' is used as
proposed, the Secretary may use the entire definition or one or more of
the subparts of the definition that are most relevant for the grant
program competition.
Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare
outcomes between two groups (such as students) that are otherwise
equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group
receiving an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product,
practice, or policy as compared with a control group that does not.
Experimental studies can support claims of strong evidence. Randomized
controlled trials and single-case design studies are specific types of
experimental studies that meet this definition.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. Cross-sectional group designs, comparative interrupted time
series, difference-in-difference designs, and growth curve designs are
specific types of quasi-experimental studies that meet this definition.
This type of study can meet the definition of moderate evidence but not
strong evidence.
Final Priorities and Definitions: The Department will announce the
final priorities and definitions in a document in the Federal Register.
We will determine the final priorities and definitions after
considering responses to the proposed priorities and definitions and
other information available to the Department. This document does not
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, or
definitions, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use any of the final priorities and definitions, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, 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 set forth 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.
Since this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an
``Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.''
[[Page 21714]]
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;
(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 and definitions only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their minimal
costs. 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 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 are
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The proposed priorities would impose no or minimal costs on
entities that receive discretionary grant award funds from the
Department. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the proposed
priorities outweigh any associated costs, to the extent these de
minimis costs even exist, because these proposed priorities would
result in higher quality grant application submissions that directly
improve the educational outcomes of all students. These proposed
priorities and definitions will result in significant benefit to the
public by improving educational outcomes for all students and
ultimately increase the future earnings potential of all students.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment,
2023. ``Education pays'': U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application submission and participation in competitive grant
programs that might use these proposed priorities and definitions is
voluntary. We believe, based on the Department's administrative
experience, that entities preparing an application would not need to
expend more resources than they otherwise would have in the absence of
these proposed priorities. Therefore, any potential costs to applicants
would be de minimis. Because the costs of carrying out activities would
be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not
be a burden for any eligible applicants that earn a grant award,
including small entities. We invite the public to comment on this
discussion of estimated costs and benefits. We are specifically
interested in high quality comments supported with quantitative data.
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 these proposed priorities and definitions, easier to
understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: This action 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
This section considers the effects that the final regulations may
have on small entities in the educational sector as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The purpose of
the RFA is to establish as a principle of regulation that agencies
should tailor regulatory and informational requirements to the size of
entities, consistent with the objectives of a particular regulation and
applicable statutes. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory
action would not have a substantial 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
[[Page 21715]]
institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by
a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed priorities and definitions do not contain information
collection requirements or affect the currently approved data
collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, 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 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.
Linda McMahon,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2025-09093 Filed 5-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P