36220 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing the final priorities only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits will justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that would maximize net 

benefits. Based on an analysis of 

anticipated costs and benefits, we 

believe that the final priorities are 

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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this regulatory action does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define proprietary 

institutions as small businesses if they 

are independently owned and operated, 

are not dominant in their field of 

operation, and have total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit 

institutions are defined as small entities 

if they are independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in their field 

of operation. Public institutions are 

defined as small organizations if they 

are operated by a government 

overseeing a population below 50,000. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are school districts, 

nonprofit organizations, and for-profit 

organizations. 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 priorities 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 of 1995: 

The priorities contain information 

collection requirements that are 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1894–0006 and 1810–0758; the 

priorities 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 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. 

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. 2021–14713 Filed 7–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2020–OESE–0199] 

Final Priority and Definition—Teacher 

and School Leader Incentive (TSL) 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority and definition. 

SUMMARY: The Department announces 

one priority and one definition under 

the Teacher and School Leader 

Incentive Program (TSL), Assistance 

Listing Number 84.374A. The 

Department may use this priority and 

definition for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2021 and later years. We take this 

action to make program improvements 

based on lessons learned over the last 

decade and to improve program 

outcomes. 

DATES: The priority and definition are 

effective August 9, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Orman Feres, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3C124, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–6921. Email: 

orman.feres@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 purpose of 

TSL is to assist States, local educational 

agencies (LEAs), and nonprofit 

organizations to develop, implement, 

improve, or expand comprehensive 

performance-based compensation 

systems (PBCS) or human capital 

management systems (HCMS) for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36221 

teachers, principals, and other school 

leaders (educators) (especially educators 

in High-Need Schools who raise student 

academic achievement and close the 

achievement gap between high- and 

low-performing students). In addition, a 

portion of TSL funds may be used to 

study the effectiveness, fairness, quality, 

consistency, and reliability of such 

systems. 

Program Authority: Sections 2211– 

2213 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), 20 U.S.C. 6631–6633. 

A notice of proposed priorities (NPP) 

for this program was published in the 

Federal Register on April 9, 2021 (86 FR 

18519). The NPP contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the priority and definition. 

Except for minor editorial and 

technical revisions, there are no 

differences between the proposed 

priority and definition and the final 

priority and definition. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, two comments 

were received, neither of which were 

relevant to the proposed priority and 

definition. The Secretary appreciates the 

public’s interest in this program and the 

comments received in response to the 

NPP. However, we do not address 

general comments that raise concerns 

not directly related to the NPP. 

Final Priority 

High-Need Schools. 

Under this priority, eligible applicants 

must concentrate proposed activities on 

teachers, principals, or other school 

leaders serving in High-Need Schools. 

In order to demonstrate that the TSL 

project is concentrated in High-Need 

Schools, the applicant must— 

(a) Provide the requested data in 

paragraph (c) of this priority to 

demonstrate that at least the majority of 

the schools participating in the 

proposed project are High-Need Schools 

and describe how the TSL-assisted grant 

activities are focused on those schools; 

(b) Include a list of all schools in 

which the proposed TSL-funded project 

would be implemented and indicate 

which schools are High-Need Schools; 

and 

(c) Provide the most recently available 

school-level data supporting each 

school’s designation as a High-Need 

School. 

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)). 

Final Definition 

The Assistant Secretary establishes 

the following definition for this 

program. We may apply this definition 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

High-Need School means a school 

with 50 percent or more of its 

enrollment from low-income families as 

calculated using— 

(1) The number of children eligible for 

a free or reduced-price lunch under the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

(or, if an LEA does not participate in the 

NSLP, comparable data from another 

source such as a survey); 

(2) If an LEA has one or more schools 

that participate in the Community 

Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the NSLP, 

for any of its schools (i.e., CEP and nonCEP schools), the method in paragraph 

(1) of this definition or an alternative 

method approved by the Department; 

and 

(3) For middle and high schools, data 

from feeder schools that can establish 

that the middle or high school is a HighNeed School under paragraph (1) or (2) 

of this definition. 

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 this priority and definition, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
36222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

definition 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. 

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 definition will not 

impose any particular burden except 

when an entity voluntarily elects to 

apply for a grant. The benefits of the 

priority and definition will outweigh 

any associated costs because they will 

help ensure that the Department’s TSL 

grant program selects high-quality 

applicants to implement activities that 

are designed to address High-Need 

Schools. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this regulatory action does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define proprietary 

institutions as small businesses if they 

are independently owned and operated, 

are not dominant in their field of 

operation, and have total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit 

institutions are defined as small entities 

if they are independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in their field 

of operation. Public institutions are 

defined as small organizations if they 

are operated by a government 

overseeing a population below 50,000. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action would affect are school districts, 

nonprofit organizations, and for-profit 

organizations. 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 priority and definition 

would 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 of 1995: 

The priority and definition contain 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1810–0758; the priority 

and definition do not affect the 

currently approved data collection. An 

FY 2021 competition would require 

applicants to complete and submit an 

application for Federal assistance using 

Department standard application forms. 

As a part of the application submission, 

respondents, who are LEAs, State 

educational agencies, the Bureau of 

Indian Education, nonprofit or for-profit 

organizations, or a combination thereof, 

will submit information demonstrating 

that each school included in the TSLassisted project is a High-Need school. 

We estimate that for the FY 2021 TSL 

competition and later competitions, 

each applicant will spend 

approximately 87 hours of staff time to 

address the priority and definition. 

Based on the number of applications the 

Department received in the FY 2020 

TSL competition, we expect to receive 

approximately 100 applications for 

these funds. The total number of hours 

for all expected applicants to address 

this priority and definition is an 

estimated 8,700 hours. 

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. 

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. 2021–14712 Filed 7–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

RIN 1801–AA24 

Final Requirements; American Rescue 

Plan Act Homeless Children and Youth 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) establishes requirements 

for the Homeless Children and Youth 

program (ARP–HCY), under section 

2001(b)(1) of the American Rescue Plan 

Act of 2021 (ARP Act). These 

requirements are intended to clarify 

program requirements and streamline 

and clarify the process for State 

educational agencies (SEAs) to award 

subgrants to local educational agencies 

(LEAs). 

DATES: These final requirements take 

effect July 9, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3W200, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 260–3793. Email: 

deborah.spitz@ed.gov. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES