Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 86545 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0042 

information request’’ in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Mail: Kimberly Hardy, Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450. 

Kimberly Hardy, 

Information Collections Officer, Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28869 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2020–OPEPD–0096] 

Administrative Priority and Definitions 

for Discretionary Grant Programs 

AGENCY: Office of Planning, Evaluation 

and Policy Development, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

announces a priority and definitions for 

discretionary grant programs that the 

Secretary may use in fiscal year (FY) 

2021 and later years to promote the use 

of the Department of Education’s (the 

Department’s) discretionary grants 

funds to support remote learning. 

DATES: The priority and definitions are 

effective January 29, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 205–5231. Email: 

kelly.terpak@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: 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e– 

3. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority and definitions (NPP) in the 

Federal Register on September 8, 2020 

(85 FR 55439). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular 

administrative priority and definitions. 

We have made minor revisions to 

paragraphs (b) and (f) of the priority and 

to the definition of ‘‘interoperable 

credentials,’’ which we explain in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section of this document. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 16 parties 

submitted comments. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed priority 

and definitions. 

Analysis of the Comments and 

Changes: An analysis of the comments 

and of any changes in the priority and 

definitions since publication of the NPP 

follows. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

for clarity on how the priority would be 

used and encouraged the Department to 

prioritize certain applicants, such as 

institutions of higher education, for 

eligibility. 

Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, 

the priority is intended to build State 

and local capacity to support remote 

learning and instruction. The 

Department may elect to use this 

priority when inviting applications for a 

discretionary grant program. The 

Department has the discretion to choose 

whether the priority and definitions are 

appropriate for the competition after 

considering program purpose, 

feasibility, and scope. The Department 

also has the discretion to choose how 

the priority would apply; for example, 

the priority may be used as an absolute 

priority (applicants must address the 

priority in order to be eligible to receive 

grant funds) or a competitive preference 

priority (applicants may receive 

additional points depending on how 

well they address the priority). We will 

only use the priority and definitions for 

a particular grant competition when it is 

relevant and appropriate. Furthermore, 

the Department is not required to use 

the priority and definitions for any 

particular program. 

In any competition in which this 

priority and definitions are used, 

eligible entities are determined by the 

program statute; therefore, we cannot 

specify eligibility for a particular type of 

entity as part of the final priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: A few commenters 

proposed revisions to, or additional 

language for, the background section 

that accompanied the proposed priority 

to emphasize the impact of school 

closures for in-person instruction on 

different populations, such as students 

with disabilities, as well as specifics 

related to learning losses discussed in 

the cited study. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

feedback we received on the NPP 

background section, which explains our 

rationale for this priority and 

definitions. We agree with comments 

that emphasized the impact of school 

closures for in-person instruction on 

students with disabilities and other 

groups of students and believe the 

commenters’ concerns are sufficiently 

addressed through paragraph (f) of the 

priority. Moreover, we are revising 

paragraph (f) so that a program may 

choose to focus on a specific subgroup. 

Additionally, we added language in 

parentheticals clarifying that where the 

commonly used terms used for the 

subgroups of students in paragraph (f) or 

similar terms are defined in the 

applicable authorizing program statute, 

these terms take on the statutory 

definition that applies to the particular 

program. For example, this priority 

could be used in the Alaska Native 

Education (ANE) program to encourage 

projects that provide high-quality 

remote learning to students who are 

Alaska Natives, as defined in the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act, as amended (ESEA), through the 

use of paragraph (f)(iv) of the priority, 

pertaining to Native American students. 

Changes: We are modifying paragraph 

(f) so that a program may choose to 

focus on specific subgroups and have 

clarified that the definitions of listed 

subgroups may be based on the 

program’s statutory authority, as 

applicable. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

requested that we reference Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act in the 

accessibility requirement paragraph that 

concludes the priority. 

Discussion: We agree that accessibility 

is important in ensuring all students can 

access remote learning effectively, and 

we have indicated so in various 

paragraphs of the priority. Section 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act applies only to 

Federal agencies, so recipients of 

Federal financial assistance are not 

required to comply with that law; 

consequently, inclusion of Section 508 

in the accessibility requirement has 

limited applicability and is therefore 

unnecessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

expressed concerns about the impact of 

remote learning for students with 

disabilities, including a concern that the 

priority did not take into account the 

individual needs of students identified 

for services pursuant to the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

In addition, multiple commenters 

expressed support for paragraph (f) of 

the priority to target the needs of 

specific subgroups, including students 

with disabilities. However, one 

commenter recommended the 

Department remove the requirement 

that paragraph (f) of the priority be used 

only in conjunction with another 

paragraph of the priority. 

86546 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 

Discussion: Students with disabilities 

throughout the country who may be 

eligible for services under Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Section 504) or the IDEA must have 

their individual learning needs met 

from wherever they are learning. 

Educators also need training and 

support to provide effective remote 

instruction. Through this priority, we 

will promote strategies and practices for 

delivering remote learning and 

competency-based education that 

effectively meet the individual needs of 

students with disabilities, including: 

Identifying the appropriate 

technologies, assistive technologies, or 

accessible educational materials needed 

to ensure students with disabilities have 

access to core or alternate curricula; 

enhancing communication and 

collaboration with parents and families 

to identify the most effective 

methodology and supports that will 

meet the unique and individual needs of 

students with disabilities; and ensuring 

Individualized Education Program 

teams and teams determining services 

under Section 504 collaborate with 

parents to identify the program, related 

services, accommodations, and supports 

the individual student will require in 

order to derive an educational benefit 

and achieve academic, functional, and 

behavioral educational outcomes. 

Lastly, paragraph (f) of the priority is 

designed to target the work carried out 

under paragraphs (a)–(e) of the priority 

to a particular subgroup or subgroups of 

students and leverage that work to focus 

efforts. As such, paragraph (f) on its own 

would not address fully the 

improvements that would be supported 

with this remote learning priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

suggested adding language on the 

principles of Universal Design for 

Learning (UDL) in all the paragraphs of 

the priority. 

Discussion: The priority currently 

refers to UDL in paragraph (a) of the 

priority as an example. As written, the 

language in the other paragraphs of the 

priority could be inclusive of UDL as a 

strategy for meeting the needs of 

students with disabilities. 

Further, the priority offers the 

flexibility for applicants to address UDL 

and similar strategies in their grant 

applications. There is nothing in the 

priority that would prohibit the use of 

UDL. For these reasons, it is not 

necessary to revise the priority to 

include explicit references to the 

strategy in all paragraphs of the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter raised 

concerns that the priority did not 

address all student populations most 

impacted by remote learning, that 

remote learning is not culturally 

responsive, and that the assessments 

need to be research-based. This 

commenter also raised concern about 

inequitable access to technology, stating 

that the priority will further exacerbate 

the ‘‘digital divide.’’ A second 

commenter recommended removing the 

10 percent limitation on technology 

costs, citing concerns about access to 

technology and the variance in that 

access across the country. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

concern that the remote learning 

priority must consider the needs of all 

students. We include paragraph (f) of 

the priority which requires ‘‘highquality’’ remote learning for specific 

subgroups of students, and we think 

that the concept of high-quality remote 

learning would include considerations 

about what is culturally responsive, as 

appropriate. We also generally defer to 

applicants on how best to meet their 

communities’ needs. Furthermore, the 

intent of the remote learning priority is 

to ensure that the Department provide 

incentives to applicants that would 

implement robust, effective, and 

engaging remote learning strategies that 

meet the needs of all students. In 

addition, while we do not explicitly 

require performance-based assessments 

to be supported by research, in 

paragraph (d) of the priority we do 

require that the assessments obtain valid 

and reliable results. 

Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority 

allowed for providing access to 

technologies needed to serve learners. 

The intent of proposed paragraph (c) 

was to reduce the differences in access 

to technology. We understand that 

setting a limit on technology costs could 

be prohibitive to successfully 

implementing the remote learning 

priority and understand that applicants 

are best positioned to determine the 

sufficient amount of resources needed to 

invest in technology to support project 

objectives. As such, we are removing the 

cap on technology costs in paragraph (c) 

of the proposed priority. 

Changes: We are removing the last 

sentence of paragraph (c) of the 

proposed priority. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

supported the priority, emphasized the 

need for professional learning and the 

usage of paragraph (b), and noted the 

important role institutions of higher 

education play in professional 

development. One commenter asked 

that the Department use paragraph (b) in 

all competitions as an absolute priority. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the priority. We agree that 

professional learning is an important 

part of effective remote learning and 

agree that institutions of higher 

education, along with a number of other 

entities, can support professional 

learning for educators. With respect to 

using paragraph (b) as an absolute 

priority across all discretionary grant 

programs, the Department has discretion 

in choosing whether and how to use the 

priority based on its applicability to a 

given program’s purpose, and those 

decisions are best made on a programby-program basis. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

requested that the Department expand 

paragraph (b), which is focused on 

professional learning. One commenter 

wanted paragraph (b) to align with the 

definition of ‘‘professional 

development’’ under the ESEA. Another 

commenter said the examples in the 

parenthetical for paragraph (b) should 

be expanded with additional examples 

to emphasize professional development 

focused on student engagement and not 

just professional development in 

technology use. 

Discussion: We appreciate the interest 

in clarity and consistency in 

terminology in this priority and other 

statutes. However, the language about 

professional development being 

‘‘sustained and intensive’’ from the 

definition of ‘‘professional 

development’’ in ESEA is not 

appropriate for this remote learning 

priority. Our intent for this priority is to 

help the Department’s grantees pivot 

between in-person and remote learning 

as needed. While remote learning in 

response to the novel coronavirus 2019 

(COVID–19) pandemic has been in place 

for an extended period, not all remote 

learning under this priority will be for 

similar time frames, and professional 

learning may not need to be ongoing to 

address educator capacity for remote 

learning. 

In regard to the comment 

recommending additional examples to 

highlight professional learning activities 

beyond technology, paragraph (b) 

already includes a focus on professional 

learning with the intent of advancing 

student engagement and learning, but 

we recognize the paragraph may appear 

to highlight technology primarily. As 

such, we are reorganizing the sentence 

for paragraph (b) to clearly emphasize 

increasing student engagement, 

including through the use of technology. 

Changes: We are revising paragraph 

(b) so that it more clearly states that the 

professional learning under this priority 

is focused on student engagement and 

learning through technology, rather than 

emphasizing technology. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 86547 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

sought revisions to paragraph (d) of the 

priority to clarify that performancebased assessments are important, 

regardless of the connection to 

competency-based education; that the 

assessments must show true 

competency; and that assessments 

should not require seat time. 

Commenters also asked the Department 

to provide additional examples of 

assessments. 

Discussion: We agree that 

performance-based assessments are 

important and purposefully highlight 

these kinds of assessments and seek 

their development under paragraph (d) 

of the priority. We agree that 

performance-based assessments can be 

separate from competency-based 

education; however, we want to 

emphasize competency-based education 

in this paragraph of the remote learning 

priority. Moreover, we want to 

encourage assessments that demonstrate 

competency, in keeping with the 

recommendation from one commenter, 

and we want to support assessments 

that accurately document students’ 

skills. The examples included in 

paragraph (d) do not need to be 

exhaustive and are sufficient for the 

purposes of the priority. Lastly, we do 

not consider the priority or the 

definition of ‘‘competency-based 

education,’’ as written, to require a 

particular amount of instruction or seat 

time; rather, the definition of 

‘‘competency-based education’’ 

specifically calls for assessments that 

demonstrate progression ‘‘based on 

demonstrated mastery of what students 

are expected to know (knowledge) and 

be able to do (skills), rather than seat 

time or age.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the ‘‘valid and reliable assessments’’ 

piece of paragraph (d) of the priority 

that focused on assessments and 

competency-based education should not 

be limited to just summative 

assessments. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s interest in not limiting 

assessments to summative assessments 

and focusing on formative assessments 

as well. We do not consider the 

inclusion of ‘‘valid and reliable’’ in 

describing the assessments to mean that 

they must only be summative 

assessments. Rather, paragraph (d) 

focuses on performance-based 

assessments that document students’ 

skills and, under the definition of 

‘‘competency-based education,’’ 

progression is based on demonstrated 

mastery rather than seat time. However, 

we want to clarify that the intent is for 

performance-based assessments to yield 

valid and reliable results and are 

therefore changing ‘‘obtain’’ in proposed 

paragraph (d) to ‘‘yield.’’ 

Changes: We are revising ‘‘obtain’’ in 

paragraph (d) of the proposed priority to 

‘‘yield.’’ 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we clarify the terms 

‘‘hybrid/blended learning’’ and ‘‘linked 

open data formats’’ used in the priority. 

Discussion: We appreciate the interest 

in providing clarity in the priority and 

the terminology used. We decline to 

further define ‘‘hybrid/blended 

learning,’’ as this term has various 

meanings in the field depending on 

specific contexts of a particular 

community, and we do not think it is 

necessary to define the term for 

purposes of the priority. We also decline 

to define ‘‘linked open data formats.’’ 

We think ‘‘open data’’ is a term widely 

used at the Federal, State, and local 

levels, and by ‘‘linked’’ we emphasize 

the accessibility of the data. We do not 

consider a separate definition to be 

necessary and believe programs using 

this priority will clarify how these terms 

fit within their specific context. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether, under paragraph (f), the 

Department should require applicants to 

provide both high-quality remote 

learning and competency-based 

education in response to this paragraph, 

or whether applicants should have the 

flexibility to choose between remote 

learning or competency-based 

education, as provided in the proposed 

priority. 

Discussion: The proposed priority 

would have offered applicants a choice 

between providing remote learning or 

competency-based education to specific 

student subgroups. While a project 

could support both remote learning and 

competency-based education, in further 

reviewing paragraph (f), we think 

‘‘competency-based education’’ can be 

removed from proposed paragraph (f) 

because the broader priority is focused 

on building capacity for remote 

learning. 

Changes: We are removing ‘‘or 

competency-based education’’ from 

paragraph (f) of the proposed priority. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

limiting the definition of ‘‘remote 

learning’’ to K–12 education given the 

recent publication of the higher 

education distance education 

regulations, citing concern that existing 

definitions in the higher education 

context, including the definition for 

‘‘distance education,’’ that include 

remote learning concepts may spark 

confusion. Specifically, ‘‘distance 

education’’ is defined in the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(HEA), as well as in the Distance 

Education and Innovation regulations 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54742). 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s consideration of whether 

this priority and the ‘‘remote learning’’ 

definition is applicable in the higher 

education context, as our intent is to 

establish a priority that could be used in 

grant programs across the Department, 

including those for higher education. 

We recognize that there are definitions 

for ‘‘distance education’’ in section 

103(7) of the HEA and ‘‘distance 

learning’’ in section 8101(14) of the 

ESEA. The definition of ‘‘remote 

learning’’ is not meant to contradict or 

supersede these definitions or the 

definition of ‘‘distance education’’ in 

the HEA or the higher education 

Distance Education and Innovation 

regulations; rather, it is meant to 

provide context for those definitions 

and clarify what is meant by remote 

learning in the context of this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the priority but asked that the definition 

for ‘‘remote learning’’ also reference 

non-technology models, such as service 

learning, internships, and other 

programs. 

Discussion: We agree that remote 

learning can include non-technology 

models and highlight some of those as 

examples in the ‘‘remote learning’’ 

definition. Given that the list of 

examples is not exhaustive, nothing in 

the definition prohibits other activities 

in addition to the activities identified. 

We, therefore, do not think adding 

additional examples is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

supported the inclusion of competencybased education in the priority, with 

one commenter recommending a standalone priority focused on competencybased education, arguing that 

competency-based education, while it 

can be used in conjunction with 

technology, does not require technology. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for inclusion of competency-based 

education in the priority and 

definitions. We agree that competencybased education is important, and the 

Department previously included 

‘‘competency-based learning’’ in Priority 

3—Fostering Flexible and Affordable 

Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and 

Skills in the Secretary’s Final 

Supplemental Priorities and Definitions 

for Discretionary Grant Programs 

(Supplemental Priorities) published in 

the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 

86548 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 

(83 FR 9096). As such, we do not need 

to create an additional, separate priority 

for competency-based education. 

Further, we decline to remove the 

reference to ‘‘competency-based 

education’’ in paragraph (a) because our 

intent is to encourage competency-based 

education in remote learning 

environments. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

recommended changes to the definition 

of ‘‘competency-based education,’’ 

including adding references to 

credentials that are inclusive of all 

students, include appropriate pacing, 

and are student focused. An additional 

commenter proposed limiting the 

definition for ‘‘competency-based 

education’’ to K–12 education given the 

recent publication of the higher 

education Distance Education and 

Innovation regulations and concern 

about confusion when used in the 

higher education context, especially 

since competency-based education was 

not defined in those regulations. 

Discussion: We appreciate comments 

suggesting that we revise the definition 

of ‘‘competency-based education.’’ We 

proposed to define the term as 

‘‘competency-based education,’’ which 

was included as an example in 

paragraph (a) of the priority and is 

central to the performance-based 

assessments piece of paragraph (d). The 

definition as written is inclusive of all 

students, allows for demonstration of 

mastery as a result of self-paced 

learning, and provides a broad 

understanding of competency-based 

education for operationalizing within 

the context of the remote learning 

priority. The definition of ‘‘competencybased education’’ for the remote 

learning priority is consistent with other 

Department usage and definitions of 

‘‘competency-based education,’’ 

including the Rural Tech Project 

(https://www.ruraltechproject.com/). 

As to the concern about usage of the 

priority and the ‘‘competency-based 

education’’ definition in higher 

education, the Department has the 

discretion for each grant program to 

choose if the priority should be used in 

a given competition considering the 

program’s purpose, feasibility, and 

scope, and, if so, how the priority would 

apply; for example, a program may 

choose to use only paragraph (a) of the 

priority. As noted above, competencybased education is part of an illustrative 

list in paragraph (a), and an applicant is 

not required to address all items in that 

list. Competency-based education is 

more central to paragraph (d), but the 

Department may choose whether to use 

paragraph (d) when including the 

remote learning priority in a particular 

grant competition, taking into 

consideration the program’s statute and 

other relevant regulations. As noted 

earlier, the Department will make 

program-by-program decisions about 

when and how to use the remote 

learning priority, including in the 

higher education context. Moreover, the 

definition of ‘‘competency-based 

education’’ does not contradict or 

supersede any of the Distance Education 

and Innovation regulations; rather, it is 

meant to clarify what is meant by 

‘‘competency-based education’’ in the 

context of this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the inclusion of interoperable 

credentials in the priority and 

definitions and recommended that the 

Department include interoperable 

credential requirements in all 

discretionary grant competitions. In the 

definition, the commenter proposed that 

we change ‘‘common standardized 

frameworks’’ to ‘‘nationally recognized 

and widely used educational or 

professional learning standards.’’ 

Discussion: We agree that 

interoperable credentials are important 

and appreciate the support for 

paragraph (e) of the priority. The 

Department has discretion in choosing 

whether and how to use the priority for 

all of our grant competitions. We decide 

to use a particular priority based on 

careful consideration of whether the 

priority and definitions are appropriate 

for each competition with regard to 

program purpose, feasibility, and scope. 

In regard to the recommendation to 

refer to ‘‘nationally recognized and 

widely used educational or professional 

learning standards’’ rather than 

‘‘common standardized frameworks,’’ 

we appreciate the interest in ensuring 

clarity in terminology. We note the 

white papers hosted on the U.S. 

Department of Commerce website 

designed to provide clarity regarding, 

among other things, ‘‘credentials,’’ 

which include a focus on ‘‘common 

standardized frameworks’’: ‘‘White 

Paper on Interoperable Learning 

Records’’ (www.commerce.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_

FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ‘‘Learning and 

Employment Records: Progress and the 

path forward’’ (www.commerce.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2020-09/ 

LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). 

Moreover, we do not think the 

Department should endorse specific 

national standards related to 

credentialing, and, as such, we do not 

consider it appropriate to revise the 

definition as the commenter suggested. 

Though there are many standards that 

could apply to credentials, we expect 

applicants and grantees will choose 

standards that are widely accepted and 

meet the needs of their projects. 

Therefore, we are not making any 

changes to the reference to, or definition 

of, ‘‘interoperable credentials.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: In reference to 

competency-based education and 

interoperable credentials, one 

commenter recommended adding 

specific references to ‘‘short-term 

credentials,’’ such as micro-credentials, 

to clearly demonstrate that credentials 

are broader than traditional, time-bound 

programs. 

Discussion: We agree that the intent 

behind inclusion of competency-based 

education and interoperable credentials 

in the priority and definitions is to 

broaden practitioners’ use of 

credentials. As such, we are adding 

examples of some of these short-term 

credentials to highlight other less 

traditional credential types. 

Change: In the definition for 

‘‘interoperable credentials,’’ we have 

added references to micro-, stackable, 

and other types of short-term 

credentials. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

limiting the definition of ‘‘interoperable 

credentials’’ to K–12 education, stating 

that the term is not one used in the 

higher education context. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s consideration of whether 

the ‘‘interoperable credentials’’ 

definition is applicable in the higher 

education context, as our intent is to 

have a priority that could be used in 

grant programs across the Department, 

including those for postsecondary 

education. Credentials are more than 

specific postsecondary degrees; they can 

be smaller units and time bound. 

Examples of these types of credentials 

include micro-credentials and stackable 

credentials, which can be used for 

professional development, and we think 

it is important for all education sectors 

to think more broadly about credentials 

and their interoperability. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters asked 

whether the definition of ‘‘interoperable 

credentials’’ creates two sets of 

requirements, for the credentials 

themselves and for data and information 

sharing relating to the credentials. The 

commenters suggested clarifying 

revisions. Given that the term included 

two distinct points, the commenters had 

concerns about confusion when 

defining ‘‘interoperable credentials.’’ 

The commenters proposed edits to 

clarify the distinction. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 86549 

In addition, one of the commenters 

also expressed the importance of 

transparency related to interoperable 

credentials and proposed a new 

definition for ‘‘credential transparency.’’ 

Discussion: Through this definition, 

the Department is establishing 

requirements both with respect to the 

credentials generally and with respect to 

their interoperability. Although there 

are many types of credentials, including 

some that may not be interoperable, we 

intentionally use the term 

‘‘interoperable credentials’’ in this 

priority because we are especially 

interested in promoting recognizable, 

transferrable, and transparent evidence 

of mastery. Defining the term 

‘‘interoperable credentials’’ does not 

imply that other forms of credentials do 

not exist. 

Credential transparency is embedded 

in the definition, particularly through 

the requirement of ‘‘open standards,’’ 

and, as the commenter points out, there 

are many organizations focused on 

making credentials transparent and 

available to users. We note the white 

papers hosted on the U.S. Department of 

Commerce website as examples of the 

efforts to promote credential 

transparency and interoperability, in 

this case in the context of learner 

employment records: ‘‘White Paper on 

Interoperable Learning Records’’ 

(www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_

EBOOK.pdf) and ‘‘Learning and 

Employment Records: Progress and the 

path forward’’ (www.commerce.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2020-09/ 

LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). We, thus, 

do not think a separate definition or 

additional clarification of the definition 

is needed. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

Building Capacity for Remote Learning 

Under this priority, an applicant must 

propose a project that is designed to 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Adopting and supporting models 

that leverage technology (e.g., universal 

design for learning, competency-based 

education (as defined in this notice), or 

hybrid/blended learning) and provide 

high-quality digital learning content, 

applications, and tools. 

(b) Providing personalized and jobembedded professional learning to build 

the capacity of educators to create 

remote learning experiences that 

advance student engagement and 

learning through effective use of 

technology (e.g., synchronous and 

asynchronous professional learning, 

professional learning networks or 

communities, and coaching). 

(c) Providing access to any of the 

following, in particular to serve learners 

without access to such technologies: 

Reliable, high-speed internet, learning 

devices, or software applications that 

meet all students’ and educators’ remote 

learning needs while inside the school 

building and in remote learning 

environments. 

(d) Developing performance-based 

assessments that promote competencybased education and can be delivered 

remotely or in-person to students and 

yield valid and reliable results that 

accurately document students’ skills 

(e.g., inquiry/game-based assessment or 

data visualization tools for monitoring 

ongoing learning). 

(e) Supporting the development of 

digital interoperable credentials (as 

defined in this notice) that make 

transparent the competencies achieved 

through remote learning experiences 

and allow students to access, control, 

and share their achievements across a 

variety of education and training 

processes (formal or informal, 

classroom-based, remote, or workplacebased). Information on these credentials 

must be publicly accessible using linked 

open data formats to ensure their 

transferability and the continuity of 

learning for students. 

(f) Providing high-quality remote 

learning specifically for one or more of 

the following student subgroups: 

(i) Students from low-income (as may 

be defined in the program’s authorizing 

statute) families; 

(ii) Children or students with 

disabilities (as may be defined in the 

program’s authorizing statute); 

(iii) English learners (as may be 

defined in the program’s authorizing 

statute); 

(iv) Native American (as may be 

defined in the program’s authorizing 

statute) students; 

(v) Homeless (as may be defined in 

the program’s authorizing statute) 

students ; or 

(vi) Students attending schools in 

rural (as may be defined in the 

program’s authorizing statute) areas. 

The remote learning environment 

must be accessible to individuals with 

disabilities in accordance with Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

and Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, as applicable. The 

remote learning environment must also 

provide appropriate remote learning 

language assistance services to English 

learners. 

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)). 

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 the priority and definitions, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Final Definitions 

The Secretary establishes the 

following definitions for use in any 

Department discretionary grant 

competition in which the final priority 

is used: 

Competency-based education (also 

called proficiency-based or masterybased learning) means learning based on 

knowledge and skills that are 

transparent and measurable. Progression 

is based on demonstrated mastery of 

what students are expected to know 

(knowledge) and be able to do (skills), 

rather than seat time or age. 

Interoperable credentials are those 

credentials built using open standards 

so that they are shareable, verifiable, 

portable, and secure. The credentials 

describe the specific achievements, such 

as credential type, skill level, or other 

information, using common, 

standardized frameworks so that the 

data are machine readable, 

exchangeable, and actionable across 

technology systems and, when 

appropriate, on the web. When 

86550 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 

credentials are interoperable, a full 

range of an individual’s skills and 

achievements, earned through formal 

and informal learning experiences or 

workplace-based training, can be 

collected together and verified, 

regardless of available technology 

systems, reducing challenges as 

individuals transition between 

education and employment. These 

credentials include traditional academic 

credentials, as well as micro-, stackable, 

and other types of short-term credentials 

earned through short-term, professional 

development, or non-credit bearing 

educational experiences. 

Remote learning means programming 

where at least part of the learning occurs 

away from the physical building in a 

manner that addresses a learner’s 

education needs. Remote learning may 

include online, hybrid/blended 

learning, or non-technology-based 

learning (e.g., lab kits, project supplies, 

paper packets). 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, it must 

be determined whether this regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to the requirements of the 

Executive order and subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action likely to result in 

a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Under Executive Order 13771, for 

each new regulation 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 regulation must 

be fully offset by the elimination of 

existing costs through deregulatory 

actions. However, Executive Order 

13771 does not apply to ‘‘transfer rules’’ 

that cause only income transfers 

between taxpayers and program 

beneficiaries, such as those regarding 

discretionary grant programs. Because 

the priority and definitions would be 

used in connection with one or more 

discretionary grant programs, Executive 

Order 13771 does not apply. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its 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 this final priority and 

definitions only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with 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 we have determined as 

necessary for administering the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that this 

regulatory action will not impose 

significant costs on eligible entities, 

whose participation in our programs is 

voluntary, and costs can generally be 

covered with grant funds. As a result, 

the priority and definitions will not 

impose any particular burden except 

when an entity voluntarily elects to 

apply for a grant. The benefits of the 

priority and definitions will outweigh 

any associated costs because they will 

help ensure that the Department’s 

discretionary grant programs select 

high-quality applicants to implement 

activities that are designed to address 

critical remote learning needs. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this regulatory action will 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. 

Of the impacts we estimate accruing 

to grantees or eligible entities, all are 

voluntary and related mostly to an 

increase in the number of applications 

prepared and submitted annually for 

competitive grant competitions. 

Therefore, we do not believe that the 

final priority and definitions will 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices 86551 

significantly impact small entities 

beyond the potential for increasing the 

likelihood of their applying for, and 

receiving, competitive grants from the 

Department. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These final priority and definitions 

contain information collection 

requirements that are approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1894–0009; 

the final priority and definitions do not 

affect the currently approved data 

collection. 

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 the Department’s 

discretionary grant programs. 

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. 

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. 

Betsy DeVos, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28820 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. NJ21–7–000] 

City of Colton, California; Notice of 

Petition for Declaratory Order 

Take notice that on December 16, 

2020, pursuant to Rules 205 and 207 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.205, 385.207, 

and consistent with the provisions of 

the Transmission Owner (TO) Tariff, the 

City of Colton, California (Colton), 

submitted a petition for a declaratory 

order requesting that the Commission 

(1) accept Colton’s seventh annual 

revision to its Transmission Revenue 

Balancing Account Adjustment 

(TRBAA); (2) approve Colton’s annual 

update to the costs of its Existing 

Transmission Contract (ETC) with 

Southern California Edison Company 

for the purpose of recovery of such costs 

through the ETC Pass-through Clause 

contained in Colton’s TO Tariff; (3) 

accept revisions to Appendix I to 

Colton’s TO Tariff to reflect Colton’s 

revised TRBAA, ETC costs, and updated 

Base and High Voltage Transmission 

Revenue Requirements (TRR); (4) to the 

extent necessary, waive the sixty-day 

notice requirement provided for in the 

Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR 

35.3(a); (5) waive the filing fee 

associated with this Petition that is 

provided for by Rule 207 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207; and (6) 

grant any other relief or waivers 

necessary or appropriate for approval 

and implementation of the revisions to 

Colton’s Base TRR (including the 

updated ETC cost components), 

TRBAA, High Voltage TRR, and 

modifications to Colton’s TO Tariff 

effective as of January 1, 2021, as more 

fully explained in the petition. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. Anyone filing a motion 

to intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Petitioner. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests 

and interventions in lieu of paper using 

the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://

www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file 

electronically may mail similar 

pleadings to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand 

delivered submissions in docketed 

proceedings should be delivered to 

Health and Human Services, 12225 

Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

In addition to publishing the full text 

of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. At this 

time, the Commission has suspended 

access to the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, due to the 

proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued 

by the President on March 13, 2020. For 

assistance, contact the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time on January 6, 2021. 

Dated: December 22, 2020. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28834 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 539–015] 

Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of 

Application Accepted for Filing and 

Soliciting Motions To Intervene and 

Protests 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: New Major 

License. 

b. Project No.: 539–015. 

c. Date Filed: April 30, 2020. 

d. Applicant: Lock 7 Hydro Partners, 

LLC (Lock 7 Hydro). 

e. Name of Project: Mother Ann Lee 

Hydroelectric Station Water Power 

Project (Mother Ann Lee Project).