83862 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Solely for purposes of the 

exemption applicable to any transaction 

in currency in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, to the extent of its domestic 

operations and only with respect to 

transactions conducted through its 

exemptible accounts, any other 

commercial enterprise (for purposes of 

this section, a ‘‘non-listed business’’), 

other than an enterprise specified in 

paragraph (e)(8) of this section, that: 

* * * * * 

(7) Solely for purposes of the 

exemption applicable to any transaction 

in currency in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, with respect solely to 

withdrawals for payroll purposes from 

existing exemptible accounts, any other 

person (for purposes of this section, a 

‘‘payroll customer’’) that: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) A bank is not required to file a 

FinCEN Form 110 with respect to the 

transfer of convertible virtual currency 

or digital assets with legal tender status 

to or from any exempt person as 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) to (3) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) No bank shall be subject to penalty 

under this chapter for failure to file a 

report required by § 1010.311 or 

§ 1010.316 of this chapter with respect 

to a transaction in currency, convertible 

virtual currency, or digital assets with 

legal tender status by an exempt person 

with respect to which the requirements 

of this section have been satisfied, 

unless the bank: 

* * * * * 

(3) A bank that files a report with 

respect to a currency, convertible virtual 

currency, or digital asset with legal 

tender status transaction by an exempt 

person rather than treating such person 

as exempt shall remain subject, with 

respect to each such report, to the rules 

for filing reports, and the penalties for 

filing false or incomplete reports that 

are applicable to reporting of 

transactions in currency, convertible 

virtual currency, or digital assets with 

legal tender status by persons other than 

exempt persons. 

(h) Obligations to file suspicious 

activity reports and maintain system for 

monitoring transactions in currency, 

convertible virtual currency, or digital 

assets with legal tender status. 

(1) Nothing in this section relieves a 

bank of the obligation, or reduces in any 

way such bank’s obligation, to file a 

report required by § 1020.320 with 

respect to any transaction, including 

any transaction in currency, convertible 

virtual currency, or digital assets with 

legal tender status, that a bank knows, 

suspects, or has reason to suspect is a 

transaction or attempted transaction that 

is described in § 1020.320(a)(2)(i), (ii), or 

(iii), or relieves a bank of any reporting 

or recordkeeping obligation imposed by 

this chapter (except the obligation to 

report transactions in currency, 

convertible virtual currency, or digital 

assets with legal tender status, pursuant 

to this chapter to the extent provided in 

this section). Thus, for example, a sharp 

increase from one year to the next in the 

gross total of currency transactions 

made by an exempt customer, or 

similarly anomalous transactions trends 

or patterns, may trigger the obligation of 

a bank under § 1020.320. 

■ 15. Add § 1020.316 to read as follows: 

§ 1020.316 Convertible virtual currency 

and digital assets with legal tender status 

filing obligations. 

Refer to § 1010.316 of this chapter for 

reports of transactions in convertible 

virtual currency and digital assets with 

legal tender status filing obligations for 

banks. 

PART 1022—RULES FOR MONEY 

SERVICES BUSINESSES 

■ 16. The authority citation for part 

1022 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959; 

31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 and 5316–5332; title III, 

sec. 314, Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 

701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 599. 

■ 17. Revise § 1022.310 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1022.310 Reports of transactions in 

currency, convertible virtual currency, and 

digital assets with legal tender status. 

The reports of transactions in 

currency and transactions in convertible 

virtual currency and digital assets with 

legal tender status requirements for 

money services businesses are located 

in subpart C of part 1010 of this chapter 

and this subpart. 

■ 18. Revise § 1022.312 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1022.312 Identification required. 

Refer to § 1010.312 of this chapter for 

identification requirements for reports 

of transactions in currency and 

transactions in convertible virtual 

currency and digital assets with legal 

tender status filed by money services 

businesses. 

■ 19. Revise § 1022.313 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1022.313 Aggregation. 

Refer to § 1010.313 of this chapter for 

reports of transactions in currency and 

transactions in convertible virtual 

currency and digital assets with legal 

tender status aggregation requirements 

for money services businesses. 

■ 20. Add § 1022.316 to read as follows: 

§ 1022.316 Convertible virtual currency 

and digital assets with legal tender status 

filing obligations. 

Refer to § 1010.316 of this chapter for 

reports of transactions in convertible 

virtual currency filing obligations for 

money services businesses. 

By the Department of the Treasury. 

Kenneth A. Blanco, 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28437 Filed 12–18–20; 4:20 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2020–OESE–0172] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

and Definitions—Expanding 

Opportunity Through Quality Charter 

Schools Program (CSP)—National 

Dissemination Grants 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, and 

definitions for the Expanding 

Opportunity Through Quality Charter 

Schools Program (CSP)—National 

Dissemination Grants, Assistance 

Listing Number 84.282T. We may use 

one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, and definitions for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 

and later years. We take this action to 

ensure that CSP National Dissemination 

Grants are aligned with the statutory 

purposes of the CSP and address key 

national policy issues. Specifically, the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definitions focus on disseminating best 

practices for strengthening charter 

school authorizing and oversight; 

improving charter school access to 

facilities and facility financing; 

increasing educational choice for 

students with disabilities, English 

learners, and other traditionally 

underserved student groups, including 

Native American students and students 

in rural communities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before January 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83863 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Help.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions, 

address them to Cheryl Ford, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 3E207, Washington, 

DC 20202–5970. 

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: 

Cheryl Ford, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E207, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Telephone: (202) 401–1366. 

Email: charterschools@ed.gov. 

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, and 

definitions. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

section of the proposed priority, 

requirement, or definition that each 

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 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definitions. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions by 

accessing Regulations.gov. Due to the 

current COVID–19 public health 

emergency, the Department buildings 

are not open to the public. However, 

upon reopening, you may also inspect 

the comments in person at 400 

Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E207, 

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. 

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, 

requirements, and definitions. If you 

want to schedule an appointment for 

this type of accommodation or auxiliary 

aid, please contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The major 

purposes of the CSP are to expand 

opportunities for all students, 

particularly traditionally underserved 

students, to attend charter schools and 

meet challenging State academic 

standards; provide financial assistance 

for the planning, program design, and 

initial implementation of charter 

schools; increase the number of highquality charter schools available to 

students across the United States; 

evaluate the impact of charter schools 

on student achievement, families, and 

communities; share best practices 

between charter schools and other 

public schools; encourage States to 

provide facilities support to charter 

schools; and support efforts to 

strengthen the charter school 

authorizing process. 

Through CSP National Dissemination 

Grants, the Department provides funds 

on a competitive basis to support efforts 

by eligible entities to help increase the 

number of high-quality charter schools 

available to our Nation’s students by 

disseminating best practices regarding 

charter schools. 

Program Authority: Section 

4305(a)(3)(B) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), 20 U.S.C. 

7221d(a)(3)(B). 

Background: The Department last 

conducted a National Dissemination 

Grants competition in FY 2018. In that 

competition, we invited applications for 

projects designed to disseminate best 

practices for strengthening charter 

school authorizing and oversight or 

improving charter school access to 

facilities and facility financing, both key 

policy issues facing charter schools on 

a national scale. This document 

proposes similar priorities, 

requirements, and definitions as the last 

competition in order to continue to 

address these key policy issues. These 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

take into consideration the continuing 

growth of charter schools across the 

Nation and the increasing need to 

support the capacity and oversight of all 

charter schools. The priorities also 

recognize the important role that charter 

schools can play in increasing 

educational choice for students with 

disabilities, English learners, and other 

traditionally underserved student 

groups including Native American 

students and students in rural 

communities. 

Proposed Priorities 

This document contains four 

proposed priorities. These priorities are: 

Proposed Priority 1—Strengthening 

Charter School Authorizing and 

Oversight. 

Background: One of the statutory 

purposes of the CSP is to support efforts 

to strengthen the charter school 

authorizing process to improve 

performance management, including 

transparency, oversight and monitoring 

(including financial audits), and 

evaluation of charter schools. Also, the 

CSP supports quality, accountability, 

and transparency in the operational 

performance of all authorized public 

chartering agencies, including State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and other 

authorizing entities. Specifically, the 

CSP State Entity Grants program has a 

strong focus on authorizing, including a 

requirement that grantees reserve a 

portion of funds to provide technical 

assistance to authorized public 

chartering agencies and work with them 

to improve authorizing quality. This 

priority would support that emphasis by 

prioritizing projects that propose to 

develop, identify, or expand, and 

disseminate information on best 

practices in authorizing and the 

oversight of charter schools by 

authorized public chartering agencies. 

Authorizers are responsible for 

conducting rigorous application reviews 

to ensure new charter schools can be of 

high quality. They are also responsible 

for establishing clear and consistent 

policies to hold schools accountable for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1National Organization of Charter School 

Authorizers(NACSA). (2009). A Report on NACSA’s 

Authorizer Survey. Chicago: National Organization 

of Charter School Authorizers. Retrieved from 

www.qualitycharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 

08/NACSA_2008-SOCA.pdf. 

meeting their academic, financial, and 

operational performance goals, as well 

as complying with all applicable laws— 

including civil rights laws requiring 

equal access. Through this priority, the 

Department expects that the 

implementation of strong authorizing 

practices will proliferate and 

continuously improve the quality of the 

charter school sector. 

Proposed Priority: Projects that are 

designed to develop, identify, or 

expand, and disseminate information on 

best practices in authorizing and 

overseeing charter schools by 

authorized public chartering agencies in 

one or more of the following areas: 

(a) Conducting charter school 

application reviews. 

(b) Establishing governance standards 

and practices for charter schools. 

(c) Promoting and monitoring the 

compliance of charter schools and 

authorized public chartering agencies 

with Federal, State, and local academic, 

financial, governance, operational 

(including school safety), or other 

applicable requirements. 

(d) Evaluating the performance of 

charter schools or authorized public 

chartering agencies. 

(e) Facilitating the replication and 

expansion of high-quality charter 

schools. 

(f) Improving the academic, financial, 

or operational performance of charter 

schools. 

(g) Closing persistently 

underperforming charter schools. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose to disseminate bestpractices information in multiple 

locations in at least two States with a 

charter school law. 

Proposed Priority 2—Targeting 

Educational Agencies with the Most 

Need. 

Background: This priority would 

target information dissemination efforts 

toward those entities with the greatest 

need, which include States with new or 

significantly revised charter school laws 

or policies. 

To increase opportunities for 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

establish new, high-quality operational 

procedures, and because the period 

following enactment or revision of 

charter school laws and policies is most 

critical to their successful 

implementation, this priority would 

focus on States where new or revised 

charter school laws and policies have 

been adopted within the last five years. 

In addition, the priority would target 

dissemination efforts to aid the 

development of authorized public 

chartering agencies that support 10 or 

fewer schools and, accordingly, have 

limited resources related to economies 

of scale, or include struggling schools 

under their purview.1

Through this priority, the Department 

would support projects that target 

information on best practices to improve 

the overall quality of, and the ability of 

State entities to grow, the charter school 

sector within their States. 

Proposed Priority: Projects that 

propose to target information 

dissemination to one or more of the 

following: 

(a) States that have enacted laws in 

the last five years allowing charter 

schools to open. 

(b) States that in the last five years 

have significantly changed their laws, 

regulations, or policies regarding 

authorizing or oversight of charter 

schools by authorized public chartering 

agencies. 

(c) Authorized public chartering 

agencies with fewer than 10 charter 

schools. 

(d) Authorized public chartering 

agencies that authorize a significant 

number of charter schools experiencing 

significant low performance or noncompliance with Federal, State, or local 

academic, financial, governance, 

operational (including school safety), or 

other applicable requirements. 

Proposed Priority 3—Improving 

Charter School Access to Facilities and 

Facility Financing. 

Background: Limited access to 

adequate facilities and to funding for 

facilities, including per-pupil facilities 

aid, remains a significant issue 

impacting growth in the number of 

charter schools available to students 

throughout the United States. To help 

address this issue, this priority would 

support projects that develop, identify, 

or expand, and disseminate information 

on, best practices in supporting charter 

schools in accessing and financing 

facilities. 

Proposed Priority: Projects that are 

designed to develop, identify, or 

expand, and disseminate information 

on, best practices in supporting charter 

schools in accessing and financing 

facilities, including in one or more of 

the following areas: 

(a) Access to public and private 

(including philanthropic) funding, 

including from a Qualified Opportunity 

Fund under section 1400Z–2 of the 

Internal Revenue Code, as amended by 

the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (115 Pub. L. 

97), for one or more of the following, as 

needed to open or to replicate or expand 

a charter school: 

(1) The acquisition (by purchase, 

lease, donation, or otherwise) of an 

interest (including an interest held by a 

third party for the benefit of the school) 

in improved or unimproved real 

property. 

(2) The construction of new facilities, 

or the renovation, repair, or alteration of 

existing facilities. 

(3) The predevelopment costs 

required to assess sites for purposes of 

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this priority. 

(4) The acquisition of other tangible 

property. 

(b) Access to public facilities, 

including the right of first refusal. 

(c) Access to per-pupil facilities aid to 

charter schools to provide the schools 

with funding that is dedicated solely to 

charter school facilities. 

(d) Access to credit enhancements 

and other subsidies. 

(e) Access to bonds or mill levies by 

charter schools, or by other public 

entities for the benefit of charter 

schools. 

(f) Planning for facility acquisition by 

charter schools, including 

comprehensive analysis of facility 

needs. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose to disseminate bestpractices information in multiple 

locations in at least two States with a 

charter school law. 

Proposed Priority 4—Empowering 

Underserved Students and Their 

Families to Choose a High-Quality 

Education that Meets Their Unique 

Needs. 

Background: One of the statutory 

purposes of the CSP is to expand 

opportunities for children with 

disabilities, English learners, and other 

traditionally underserved students to 

attend charter schools and meet 

challenging State academic standards. 

This priority is intended to target 

funding to projects that help provide 

educational choice to these underserved 

student groups, which include 

educationally disadvantaged children, 

students who reside or attend schools in 

Qualifed Opportunity Zones (i.e., 

designated distressed communities), 

students who are Native American, and 

students who are served by rural local 

educational agencies. 

An applicant addressing this 

proposed priority would describe how 

its proposed project is designed to 

increase access to charter schools for 

one or more of these groups. An 

applicant might address this priority, for 

instance: (1) Through its plan to 

develop, identify, or expand best 

practices related to serving students in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83865 

one or more of these underserved 

groups; (2) through disseminating best 

practices in areas with high 

concentrations of one or more of these 

student groups; or (3) by targeting its 

project work in areas in which students 

in one or more of the student groups are 

at risk of educational failure or 

otherwise in need of special assistance 

or support. 

Proposed Priority: Projects that are 

designed to address increasing access to 

charter schools for one or more of the 

following groups of children or 

students: 

(a) Educationally disadvantaged 

children. 

(b) Children or students who reside or 

attend school in a Qualified 

Opportunity Zone, as designated by the 

Secretary of the Treasury under section 

1400Z–1 of the Internal Revenue Code, 

as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs 

Act. 

(c) Students who are Native 

Americans. Specifically, projects 

serving students in this category must 

focus on addressing the unique 

educational needs of Native American 

students, such as through the use of 

instructional programs and teaching 

methods that reflect and preserve Native 

American language, culture, and 

history. 

(d) Children or students in 

communities served by rural local 

educational agencies. 

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 

Background: In an effort to improve 

project outcomes, the Department is 

proposing requirements that are 

necessary for the proper consideration 

of applications for National 

Dissemination Grants in order to 

increase the likelihood of success of 

applicants’ proposed projects. In 

disseminating best practices regarding 

charter schools, grantees would 

contribute to the efficient use of 

taxpayer dollars in supporting the 

charter school sector and increasing the 

number of high-quality charter schools 

available to our Nation’s students. We 

also propose eligibility requirements, to 

ensure that grantees have the 

preparation and experience to 

implement a National Dissemination 

Grant successfully. 

Proposed Requirements: We propose 

the following requirements for this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is administered. 

Applicants for funds under this 

program must address one or more of 

the following application requirements: 

(a) Provide a project plan, including a 

logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), 

that describes the purpose of the project; 

includes clearly specified, measurable 

project objectives that are aligned with 

the project purpose; and includes the 

specific strategies and initiatives that 

will be implemented to accomplish 

project objectives. For each project 

objective, the project plan must include 

one or more of the following— 

(i) Inputs and Resources: 

Identification of the specific costs that 

will be allocated to the proposed 

project. These costs must represent the 

inputs and resources (e.g., personnel, 

contracted services, supplies, and 

equipment) that are necessary to 

generate and support grant project 

activities, and are necessary to produce 

project outputs. Applicants must ensure 

that the total project costs, as identified 

in this section, are consistent with U.S. 

Department of Education Budget 

Information Non-Construction Programs 

Form 524, 34 CFR 75.210 and responses 

to applicable selection criteria; 

(ii) Project Activities: Identification of 

the specific activities proposed to be 

funded under the grant; the estimated 

cost of those activities under the grant 

project; and how these activities are 

linked to the target grant project outputs 

and outcomes; 

(iii) Project Outputs: Identification of 

the specific project deliverables, work 

products, and other outputs of the 

proposed project, including the cost of 

those outputs (if not already itemized in 

response to paragraph (a)(ii) Project 

Activities). Examples of outputs 

include— 

(1) Best practice publications and 

products; 

(2) Evaluation reports; and 

(3) Presentation of a session at a 

conference delivering best practices for 

stakeholders. 

(iv) Project Outcomes: Identification 

of the anticipated project outcomes or 

effects as a result of the proposed 

project. 

(b) Provide a management plan that 

describes clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for executing the project and 

achieving project outcomes. 

(c) Provide a dissemination plan that 

includes the number and description of 

States, charter schools, or authorized 

public chartering agencies to which 

best-practices information will be 

disseminated, as well as a description of 

the mechanisms the applicant will use 

to disseminate information on its 

proposed projects. 

(d) Provide an evaluation plan that 

includes performance measures that are 

aligned to the project purpose, project 

objectives, and project outcomes as well 

as to the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements: 

Eligibility for a grant under this 

competition is limited to SEAs; State 

charter school authorizing boards; State 

Governors; charter school support 

organizations; authorized public 

chartering agencies; and public and 

private nonprofit organizations that 

operate, manage, or support charter 

schools. 

Eligible applicants may apply as a 

partnership or consortium and, if so 

applying, must comply with the 

requirements for group applications set 

forth in 34 CFR 75.127–129. 

Public and private nonprofit 

organizations that operate, manage, or 

support charter schools must apply in 

partnership with one or more SEAs, 

State charter school boards, State 

Governors, charter school support 

organizations, or authorized public 

chartering agencies. 

Proposed Funding Restrictions: Grant 

funds may be used only for activities 

that are related to the development, 

identification, expansion, and 

dissemination of information on best 

practices regarding the priority to which 

the applicant is responding and that are 

included in the grantee’s approved 

application. Grantees may not use grant 

funds to conduct charter school 

authorizing activities, or to open new 

charter schools, or replicate or expand 

existing charter schools. Grantees may 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83866 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

not use grant funds to acquire or finance 

the acquisition of a charter school 

facility, including through credit 

enhancement, direct lending, or 

subgrants. Grantees may not use grant 

funds for general organizational 

operating support beyond the costs 

associated with this grant project. No 

more than 5 percent of grant funds may 

be used for direct administration of the 

grant project. 

Proposed Definitions 

We propose the following definitions 

for this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which the program is in effect. 

Background: In order to ensure a 

common understanding of the proposed 

priorities and requirements, we propose 

definitions that are critical to the policy 

and statutory purposes of the National 

Dissemination Grant program. We 

propose these definitions to clarify 

expectations for eligible entities 

applying for National Dissemination 

Grants and to ensure that the review 

process for applications for National 

Dissemination Grants remains as 

transparent as possible. The proposed 

definition for ‘‘rural local educational 

agency’’ is based on the definition from 

the Secretary’s Final Supplemental 

Priorities and Definitions for 

Discetionary Grant Programs published 

in the Federal Register on March 2, 

2018 (83 FR 9096). The proposed 

definition for ‘‘educationally 

disadvantaged children’’ is based on 

section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6315). 

Educationally disadvantaged children 

means a student in one or more of the 

categories described in section 

1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which include 

children who are economically 

disadvantaged, children with 

disabilities, migrant students, English 

learners, neglected or delinquent 

students, homeless students, and 

students who are in foster care. 

Native American means an Indian 

(including an Alaska Native), as defined 

in section 6151(3) of the ESEA, Native 

Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific 

Islander. 

Rural local educational agency means 

an LEA that is eligible under the Small 

Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

program or the Rural and Low-Income 

School (RLIS) program authorized under 

Title V, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible 

applicants may determine whether a 

particular LEA is eligible for these 

programs by referring to information on 

the Department’s website at https://

oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formulagrants/rural-insular-nativeachievement-programs/rural-educationachievement-program/. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, and 

Definitions: We will announce the final 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

in a document published in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

after considering responses to the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definitions and other information 

available to the Department. This 

document does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, and definitions, 

we invite applications through a notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) determines whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

OMB has determined that this 

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 2021, any new incremental costs 

associated with a new rule 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, and definitions 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits would justify their costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that would maximize 

net benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 83867 

this regulatory action is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that this 

proposed regulatory action would 

impose minimal costs on eligible 

entities, whose participation in this 

program is voluntary, and expects that 

participants would include in their 

proposed budgets a request for funds to 

support compliance with any costbearing requirements, if necessary. We 

believe any costs associated with this 

regulatory action would be outweighed 

by its benefits, which include helping 

ensure that CSP funds support the 

dissemination of best practices on topics 

critical to the charter school sector and 

contribute to an increased number of 

high-quality educational options 

available to the Nation’s students. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that the public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions contain 

information collection requirements 

(ICR) for the program application 

package. As a result of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions, 

we will seek approval to use the 1894– 

0006 collection and 34 CFR 75.210. In 

Table 1 below, we assume 15 applicants 

each spend 40 hours preparing their 

applications. 

TABLE 1—NATIONAL DISSEMINATION GRANTS PROGRAM INFORMATION COLLECTION STATUS

OMB control No. Expiration Current burden 

(total hours) 

Proposed burden 

(total hours) Proposed action under final priorities 

1894–0006 ............. January 31, 2021 ... 0 Applicants: 600 hours ...... Obtain approval under 1894–0006. 

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, 

requirements, 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. 

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. Nonprofit institutions 

are defined as small entities if they are 

independently owned and operated and 

not dominant in their field of operation. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary and limited to entities seeking 

to disseminate best-practice information 

regarding charter schools. The 

Department anticipates that 

approximately 15 entities will apply for 

National Dissemination Grants in a 

given year and estimates that fewer than 

half of these entities will be small 

entities. For this limited number of 

small entities, any cost-bearing 

requirements imposed by this regulatory 

action can be defrayed with grant funds, 

as discussed in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis section of this document. 

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 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 other 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
83868 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1This submittal was transmitted with a cover 

letter dated March 20, 2019 from Timothy S. 

Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to 

Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX. 

2This submittal was made via the EPA’s eSIP 

submission system—State Plan electronic 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Frank T. Brogan, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28411 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0589; FRL–10017– 

39–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Stationary 

Sources; New Source Review Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions are primarily intended to 

make corrections to the ADEQ’s SIPapproved rules for the issuance of New 

Source Review (NSR) permits for 

stationary sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). This proposed action 

will update the ADEQ’s NSR rules in 

the SIP and correct the remaining 

deficiencies in the ADEQ’s NSR 

program that we identified in final EPA 

rulemaking actions in 2015 and 2016. 

Additionally, we are proposing a 

finding that the ADEQ’s SIP-approved 

NSR permitting program meets 

requirements for visibility protection for 

major NSR sources under the Act and 

are proposing to remove Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) related to 

these requirements. We are seeking 

comment on our proposed action and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2020–0589 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information the disclosure of 

which disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Beckham, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: 

(415) 972–3811 or by email at 

beckham.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. What did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of the rules in 

the Arizona SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of the submittals? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

submittals? 

B. Do the submittals meet the evaluation 

criteria for NSR programs? 

C. Evaluation of Rules Requested To Be 

Removed From the SIP 

D. Approval of Program for Visibility 

Protection in Class I Areas 

E. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria 

under Sections 110(a)(2)(A), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i), 110(l), and 193 of the 

Clean Air Act? 

F. Conclusion 

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For this document, we are giving 

meaning to certain words or initials as 

follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer 

to the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(iii) The initials ARS mean or refer to 

the Arizona Revised Statutes. 

(iv) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(v) The initials CFR mean or refer to 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

(vi) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(vii) The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(viii) The initials MMBtu/hr mean or 

refer to million British thermal units per 

hour. 

(ix) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(x) The initials NESHAP mean or refer 

to National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

(xi) The initials NNSR mean or refer 

to Nonattainment New Source Review. 

(xii) The initals NO2 mean or refer to 

nitrogen dioxide. 

(xiii) The initials NOX mean or refer 

to oxides of nitrogen. 

(xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer 

to New Source Performance Statndards. 

(xv) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(xvi) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine 

particulate matter). 

(xvii) The initials PSD mean or refer 

to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

(xviii) The initials SIP mean or refer 

to State Implementation Plan. 

(xix) The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

(xx) The words State or Arizona mean 

the State of Arizona, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(xxi) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

the technical support document for this 

action, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. What did the State submit? 

The ADEQ is the governor’s designee 

for submitting official revisions of the 

Arizona SIP to the EPA. This proposal 

evaluates three SIP revisions submitted 

by the ADEQ on March 29, 2019,1

January 14, 2020, and July 22, 2020.2


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS