36510 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States 

Food and Drug Administration et al., No. 6:20–cv– 

00176 (E.D. Tex. filed April 3, 2020). 

2R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176 

(E.D. Tex. May 8, 2020) (order granting joint motion 

and establishing schedule), Doc. No. 33. 

3R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176 

(E.D. Tex. December 2, 2020) (order granting 

Plaintiffs’ motion and postponing effective date), 

Doc. No. 80. 

4R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176 

(E.D. Tex. March 2, 2021) (order granting Plaintiffs’ 

motion and postponing effective date), Doc. No. 89. 

5R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176 

(E.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) (order granting Plaintiffs’ 

motion and postponing effective date), Doc. No. 91. 

color graphics. Pursuant to section 

201(b) of the Tobacco Control Act, the 

rule was published with an effective 

date of June 18, 2021, 15 months after 

the date of publication of the final rule. 

On April 3, 2020, the final rule was 

challenged in the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of Texas.1 On May 

8, 2020, the court granted a joint motion 

to govern proceedings in that case and 

postpone the effective date of the final 

rule by 120 days.2 On December 2, 2020, 

the court granted a new motion by the 

plaintiffs to postpone the effective date 

of the final rule by an additional 90 

days.3 On March 2, 2021, the court 

granted another motion by the plaintiffs 

to postpone the effective date of the 

final rule by an additional 90 days.4 On 

May 21, 2021, the court granted another 

motion by the plaintiffs to postpone the 

effective date of the final rule by an 

additional 90 days.5 The court ordered 

that the new effective date of the final 

rule is July 13, 2022. Pursuant to the 

court order, any obligation to comply 

with a deadline tied to the effective date 

is similarly postponed, and those 

obligations and deadlines are now tied 

to the postponed effective date. 

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies 

to this action, the Agency’s 

implementation of this action without 

opportunity for public comment, 

effective immediately upon publication 

today in the Federal Register, is based 

on the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). Seeking public comment is 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to the public interest. The 90- 

day postponement of the effective date, 

until July 13, 2022, is required by court 

order in accordance with the court’s 

authority to postpone a rule’s effective 

date pending judicial review (5 U.S.C. 

705). Seeking prior public comment on 

this postponement would have been 

impracticable, as well as contrary to the 

public interest in the orderly issuance 

and implementation of regulations. 

Dated: June 24, 2021. 

Janet Woodcock, 

Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs. 

Dated: July 06, 2021. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14678 Filed 7–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0036] 

Final Priorities and Requirement— 

Innovative Approaches to Literacy 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE), 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities and 

requirement. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces four priorities 

and one requirement under the 

Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) 

program, Assistance Listing Number 

84.215G. The Department may use one 

or more of these priorities and 

requirement for competitions in fiscal 

year (FY) 2021 and later years. 

DATES: These priorities are effective 

August 11, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Simon Earle, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202– 

6450. Telephone: (202) 453–7923. 

Email: Simon.Earle@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: 

Purpose of Program: The IAL program 

supports high-quality programs 

designed to develop and improve 

literacy skills for children and students 

from birth through 12th grade in highneed local educational agencies (LEAs) 

and schools. The Department intends to 

promote innovative literacy programs 

that support the development of literacy 

skills in low-income communities, 

including programs that: (1) Develop 

and enhance effective school library 

programs, which may include providing 

professional development for school 

librarians, books, and up-to-date 

materials to high-need schools; (2) 

provide early literacy services, 

including pediatric literacy programs 

through which, during well-child visits, 

medical providers trained in researchbased methods of early language and 

literacy promotion provide 

developmentally appropriate books and 

recommendations to parents to 

encourage them to read aloud to their 

children starting in infancy; and (3) 

provide high-quality books on a regular 

basis to children and adolescents from 

low-income communities to increase 

reading motivation, performance, and 

frequency. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6646. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities and requirement (NPP) for this 

program in the Federal Register on 

April 6, 2021 (86 FR 17757). The 

priorities included in the NPP were: 

Proposed Priority 1—Projects, Carried 

Out in Coordination with School 

Libraries, for Book Distribution, 

Childhood Literacy Activities, or Both; 

Proposed Priority 2—Providing a 

Learning Environment That Is Racially, 

Ethnically, Culturally, Disability and 

Linguistically Responsive and Inclusive, 

Supportive, and Identity-safe; Proposed 

Priority 3—Supporting Students in 

Urban Areas; and Proposed Priority 4— 

Supporting Students from Low-Income 

Families. The requirement included in 

the NPP set forth eligibility criteria. The 

NPP contained background information 

and our reasons for proposing the 

particular priorities and requirement. 

There are differences between 

Proposed Priority 2 and Final Priority 2 

as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section 

elsewhere in this notice. Except for 

minor editorial and technical revisions, 

there are no significant changes to 

Priorities 1, 3, and 4 and the 

requirement from the NPP. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 28 parties 

submitted comments, which, in total, 

addressed all four of the proposed 

priorities and requirement. Two 

comments were not relevant to the 

proposed priorities and are not included 

in the discussions below. We group 

major issues according to subject. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes, or 

suggested changes the law does not 

authorize us to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition, we do not address the two 

comments that were not directly related 

to the NPP. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities and 

requirement since publication of the 

NPP follows. 

Comment: One commenter applauded 

the Department for supporting school 

library programs during the COVID–19 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36511 

pandemic, particularly when libraries 

have been closed. The commenter 

remarked that library collections 

urgently need updating on a regular 

basis to provide resources for our 

changing cultural needs. The 

commenter believed professional 

development for librarians will help 

ensure that students have the necessary 

literacy skills and tools to make accurate 

independent virtual learning choices. 

Another commenter, in acknowledging 

the Department’s recognition of the 

importance of coordinating with school 

libraries to carry out grant activities, 

encouraged the Department also to 

promote access to diverse literary 

material. The commenter believed that 

every student deserves a school library 

that incorporates diversity. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the commenter that many school 

libraries need updated collections, 

including ensuring that available 

materials reflect the diversity of 

students, and that professional 

development for school librarians can 

be a key lever in increasing student 

literacy. For that reason, we are 

modifying Priority 2 to clarify that, as 

under Priority 1, an applicant 

implementing a program under the 

priority must coordinate with school 

libraries. 

Changes: We have clarified in Priority 

2 that an applicant must coordinate 

with school libraries. 

Comment: Five commenters provided 

remarks regarding Proposed Priority 1, 

Projects, Carried Out in Coordination 

with School Libraries, for Book 

Distribution, Childhood Literacy 

Activities, or Both. Four of the 

commenters offered support, 

recognizing the importance of school 

libraries, childhood literacy, and book 

distribution. One commenter remarked 

that IAL funding is best used by 

providing tangible items, such as 

eReaders, to LEAs serving children from 

low-income households. A commenter, 

who also supported the proposed 

priority, encouraged the Department to 

promote diversity of literary materials 

and evaluate proposed projects’ success 

in ensuring diversity. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for Proposed 

Priority 1. We think applicants for IAL 

funding are best positioned, in 

coordination with school libraries, to 

determine the needs of their students 

and acquire appropriate materials in 

response to those needs, which may 

include books and literacy-focused 

technology. We also agree that it is 

important to evaluate projects’ success 

in ensuring diversity and students 

benefit from access to diverse literary 

materials. Priority 2 highlights the 

Department’s commitment to diverse 

learning environments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Eight commenters 

provided remarks for Proposed Priority 

2, Providing a Learning Environment 

That Is Racially, Ethnically, Culturally, 

Disability and Linguistically Responsive 

and Inclusive, Supportive, and Identitysafe, and each offered their support for 

learning environments that are 

inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe. 

Commenters stated that identity-safe 

learning environments will be beneficial 

for students from diverse backgrounds, 

low-income households, and urban 

areas. A commenter also urged the 

Department to prioritize funding for 

projects that create inclusive 

environments via ethnic course studies 

tailored to each unique student 

population. 

Discussion: We agree that learning 

environments should be responsive, 

inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe, 

as reflected in Priority 2. With regard to 

prioritizing funding for projects that 

focus on ethnic studies or creating 

ethnic studies courses, we think 

Proposed Priority 2 provides the 

flexibility and autonomy for applicants 

to be innovative in creating responsive 

and inclusive learning environments, 

including through changes in curricula, 

library collections, and professional 

development. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Sixteen commenters 

provided remarks regarding Proposed 

Priority 3, Supporting Students in 

Urban Areas. Three commenters 

supported the proposed priority, noting 

that many urban schools are underresourced; they expressed the need for 

certified librarians in urban schools and 

agreed that NCES locale codes are 

appropriate indicators of urbanicity. 

Eleven commenters asserted that studies 

show students in rural areas face greater 

educational challenges than those in 

urban areas, citing data indicating that 

rural students are impacted more 

adversely in the areas of childhood 

poverty, internet access, college 

enrollment, and mental health care. 

One commenter stated that NCES 

locale codes are not the most 

appropriate indicator of urbanicity, for 

three reasons: First, school enrollment 

often does not match the surrounding 

population; second, relying on NCES 

locale codes fails to achieve the goals of 

this proposed priority and the average 

wealth of families in particular schools 

should be a factor; and third, an area 

generally is not defined by its 

population and population density. The 

commenter contended that the level of 

infrastructure, presence of public 

transit, and types of jobs may better 

define a geographical area for the 

purpose of the priority. 

Another commenter suggested the use 

of NCES locale codes restricts IAL 

funding to LEAs with an urban locale 

code of 11, 12, or 13. The commenter 

contended the use of the locale codes 

results in an under-inclusive policy that 

limits funding to urban areas even 

though 70 percent of the United States 

population lives in suburban and rural 

areas. The commenter suggested the 

Department focus on identifying LEAs 

with the lowest literacy and math 

achievement levels, which may not be 

in urban settings. 

Discussion: We appreciate the three 

commenters’ support for Proposed 

Priority 3 and agree that students in 

rural areas face educational challenges. 

To that end, the Explanatory Statement 

for Division H of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116– 

260) (2021 Appropriations Explanatory 

Statement) directs the Department to 

ensure that grants are distributed among 

eligible entities that will serve 

geographically diverse areas, including 

both rural areas and underserved 

communities in urban school districts, 

in which students from low-income 

families make up at least 50 percent of 

enrollment. Because the Department 

previously established a priority to 

serve rural communities, this new 

priority is intended to complement—not 

replace—the rural priority so the 

program can prioritize both rural and 

urban areas, as directed by the 2021 

Appropriations Explanatory Statement 

from Congress. 

We appreciate the commenter’s 

suggestions regarding additional 

indicators to be used in addition to 

NCES locale codes when identifying 

urban areas and agree that population is 

not the only characteristic associated 

with urbanicity. However, the use of 

locale codes is a long-accepted practice 

in distinguishing among applicants and 

ensuring geographic diversity in 

competitive grant programs, and we 

decline to augment locale codes as 

suggested by the commenter. 

We disagree with the commenter who 

asserted that the use of NCES locale 

codes restricts funding to LEAs assigned 

an urban locale code. As mentioned 

above, the 2021 Appropriations 

Explanatory Statement directs the 

Department to ensure that grants are 

distributed among eligible entities that 

will serve geographically diverse areas, 

including rural areas and underserved 

communities in urban school districts, 

in which students from low-income 

families make up at least 50 percent of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36512 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

enrollment. Moreover, the use of urban 

or rural priorities would not preclude 

applications from, or awards to, eligible 

applicants proposing to serve non-urban 

and non-rural areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Fourteen commenters 

offered remarks regarding Proposed 

Priority 4, Supporting Students from 

Low-Income Families. Of the three 

commenters expressing support for the 

proposed priority, one recommended 

that eligibility for participation in Part 

A of Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), be used as a 

secondary tool to demonstrate that the 

proposed project would serve students 

from low-income households. 

Ten commenters suggested this 

proposed priority signals the 

Department’s intent to no longer 

prioritize rural LEAs and high-need 

communities. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

reserve a substantial portion of available 

funds under this program for LEAs 

serving 50 percent or more of students 

from families with an income below the 

poverty line regardless of whether they 

apply for an IAL grant. 

Discussion: The purpose of the IAL 

program is to develop and improve 

literacy skills for students in high-need 

LEAs and schools. Priority 4 addresses 

supporting students from low-income 

families and does not in any way 

prioritize students in urban 

communities over students in rural 

communities. 

The Department does not agree that 

Title I eligibility would be an 

appropriate measure of poverty for the 

IAL program because the poverty 

thresholds applicable to Title I are not 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements of the IAL program. More 

specifically, only an LEA in which 20 

percent or more of the students served 

by the LEA are from families with an 

income below the poverty line (as 

defined in section 8101(41) of the ESEA) 

is eligible for an IAL award; the LEA 

poverty thresholds for receiving Title I 

funds range from just 2 percent for Basic 

Grants to a maximum of 15 percent for 

Concentration Grants. 

Additionally, as stated previously, the 

2021 Appropriations Explanatory 

Statement directs the Department to 

ensure that grants are distributed among 

eligible entities that will serve 

geographically diverse areas, including 

rural areas and underserved 

communities in urban school districts, 

in which students from low-income 

families make up at least 50 percent of 

enrollment. Finally, the statute requires 

that IAL awards be made through a 

competitive process rather than by 

formula to all eligible entities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported the proposed requirement. 

One of these commenters noted that the 

use of the Small Area Income and 

Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data may 

provide better opportunities for 

economically challenged urban LEAs to 

increase school library capabilities. The 

other commenter stated the proposed 

requirement reflects the intent of the 

IAL program and its language reflects 

the definitions in 20 U.S.C. 6646. 

Discussion: We agree the proposed 

requirement is essential for supporting 

school libraries and literacy, 

particularly for LEAs in which 20 

percent or more of students served are 

from families with an income below the 

poverty line (as defined in section 

8101(41) of the ESEA). 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities: 

Priority 1—Projects, Carried Out in 

Coordination With School Libraries, for 

Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy 

Activities, or Both. 

Projects that propose to coordinate 

with school libraries to carry out grant 

activities, such as book distributions, 

childhood literacy activities, or both, for 

the proposed project. 

Priority 2—Projects, Carried Out in 

Coordination With School Libraries, 

That Provide a Learning Environment 

That Is Racially, Ethnically, Culturally, 

Disability Status and Linguistically 

Responsive and Inclusive, Supportive, 

and Identity-Safe. 

Projects coordinated with school 

libraries and designed to be responsive 

to racial, ethnic, cultural, disability, and 

linguistic differences in a manner that 

creates inclusive, supportive, and 

identity-safe learning environments. 

In its application, the applicant 

must— 

(a) Describe the types of racially, 

ethnically, culturally, disability status, 

and linguistically responsive program 

design elements that the applicant 

proposes to include in its project; 

(b) Explain how its program design 

will create inclusive, supportive, and 

identity-safe environments; and 

(c) Describe how its project will be 

carried out in coordination with school 

libraries. 

Priority 3—Supporting Students in 

Urban Areas. 

Projects that are designed to serve one 

or more urban LEAs. In its application, 

an applicant must demonstrate one of 

the following: 

(a) The applicant is an eligible LEA or 

consortium of eligible LEAs with a 

locale code of 11, 12, or 13. 

(b) The applicant is a national 

nonprofit that proposes to serve schools 

within eligible LEAs all of which have 

a locale code of 11, 12, or 13. 

Note: Applicants are encouraged to 

retrieve locale codes from the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

School District search tool (https://

nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), 

searching by LEA. 

Priority 4—Supporting Students From 

Low-Income Families. 

Projects that serve LEAs serving 

students from low-income families. In 

its application, an applicant must 

demonstrate, based on Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau or, for 

an LEA for which SAIPE data are not 

available, the same State-derived 

equivalent of SAIPE data that the State 

uses to make allocations under part A of 

title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), one of the following: 

(a) At least 25 percent of the students 

enrolled in each of the LEAs to be 

served by the proposed project are from 

families with an income below the 

poverty line. 

(b) At least 30 percent of the students 

enrolled in each of the LEAs to be 

served by the proposed project are from 

families with an income below the 

poverty line. 

(c) At least 35 percent of the students 

enrolled in each of the LEAs to be 

served by the proposed project are from 

families with an income below the 

poverty line. 

(d) At least 40 percent of the students 

enrolled in each of the LEAs to be 

served by the proposed project are from 

families with an income below the 

poverty line. 

(e) At least 45 percent of the students 

enrolled in each of the LEAs to be 

served by the proposed project are from 

families with an income below the 

poverty line. 

(f) At least 50 percent of the students 

enrolled in each of the LEAs to be 

served by the proposed project are from 

families with an income below the 

poverty line. 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36513 

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)). 

Final Requirement: 

Requirement: 

The Department establishes the 

following requirement for this program. 

We may apply this requirement in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Eligible Applicants: To be considered 

for an award under this competition, an 

applicant must be one or more of the 

following: 

(1) An LEA in which 20 percent or 

more of the students served by the LEA 

are from families with an income below 

the poverty line (as defined in section 

8101(41) of the ESEA). 

(2) A consortium of such LEAs 

described in paragraph (1) above. 

(3) The Bureau of Indian Education. 

(4) An eligible national nonprofit 

organization (as defined in section 

2226(b)(2) of the ESEA) that serves 

children and students within the 

attendance boundaries of one or more 

eligible LEAs. 

Note: Under the definition of ‘‘poverty 

line’’ in section 8101(41) of the ESEA, 

the determination of the percentage of 

students served by an LEA from families 

with an income below the poverty line 

is based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

SAIPE data. 

An entity that meets the definition of 

an LEA in section 8101(30) of the ESEA 

and that serves multiple LEAs, such as 

a county office of education, an 

education service agency, or regional 

service education agency, must provide 

the most recent SAIPE data for each of 

the individual LEAs it serves. To 

determine whether the entity meets the 

poverty threshold, the Department will 

derive the entity’s poverty rate by 

aggregating the number of students from 

families below the poverty line (as 

provided in SAIPE data) in each of the 

LEAs the entity serves and dividing it 

by the total number of students (as 

provided in SAIPE data) in all of the 

LEAs the entity serves. 

An LEA for which SAIPE data are not 

available, such as a non-geographic 

charter school, must provide a 

determination by the State educational 

agency (SEA) that 20 percent or more of 

the students aged 5–17 in the LEA are 

from families with incomes below the 

poverty line based on the same Statederived poverty data the SEA used to 

determine the LEA’s allocation under 

part A of title I of the ESEA. 

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 or the requirement, we invite 

applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine 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. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

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 

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 final priorities 

and this final requirement 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 resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Potential Costs and Benefits 

The Department believes that this 

regulatory action will not impose 

significant costs on eligible entities, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36514 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

whose participation in our programs is 

voluntary, and costs can generally be 

covered with grant funds. As a result, 

the final priorities and requirement will 

not impose any particular burden except 

when an entity voluntarily elects to 

apply for a grant. The benefits of the 

priorities and requirement 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 innovative 

approaches to literacy. In addition, 

these priorities and requirement are 

specifically targeted to prioritize 

applicants from underserved areas and 

reduce application burden on such 

applicants. 

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 priorities and requirement will 

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 

The final priorities and requirement 

contain information collection 

requirements that are approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1894–0006. 

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 the Department published 

in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 

Portable Document Format (PDF). To 

use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat 

Reader, which is available free at the 

site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Ian Rosenblum, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Programs Delegated the Authority to Perform 

the Functions and Duties of the Assistant 

Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14758 Filed 7–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 210210–0018; RTID 0648– 

XB226] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention 

of Pacific cod by catcher/processors 

using trawl gear in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA). This action is necessary because 

the 2021 total allowable catch of Pacific 

cod allocated to catcher/processors 

using trawl gear in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the GOA has been 

reached. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska 

local time (A.l.t.), July 8, 2021, through 

2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

The 2021 total allowable catch (TAC) 

of Pacific cod allocated to catcher/ 

processors using trawl gear in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 

426 metric tons (mt) as established by 

the final 2021 and 2022 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the GOA 

(86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021). 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the 

Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS 

(Regional Administrator), has 

determined that the 2021 TAC of Pacific 

cod allocated to catcher/processors 

using trawl gear in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the GOA has been 

reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring 

that Pacific cod caught by catcher/ 

processors using trawl gear in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be 

treated as prohibited species in 

accordance with § 679.21(a)(2). 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

part 679, which was issued pursuant to 

section 304(b), and is exempt from 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there 

is good cause to waive prior notice and 

an opportunity for public comment on 

this action, as notice and comment 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest, as it would prevent 

NMFS from responding to the most 

recent fisheries data in a timely fashion 

and would delay prohibiting the 

retention of Pacific cod by catcher/ 

processors using trawl gear in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES