Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36217 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199 

Claims, Dental health, Health care, 

Health insurance, Individuals with 

disabilities, Military personnel. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 199—CIVILIAN HEALTH AND 

MEDICAL PROGRAM OF THE 

UNIFORMED SERVICES CHAMPUS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 199 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 

55. 

■ 2. In § 199.5, revise paragraph (c)(7) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 199.5 TRICARE Extended Care Health 

Option (ECHO). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) Respite care. TRICARE 

beneficiaries enrolled in ECHO are 

eligible for a maximum of 16 hours of 

respite care per month. Respite care is 

defined in § 199.2. Respite care services 

will be provided by a TRICAREauthorized HHA and will be designed to 

provide health care services for the 

covered beneficiary. The benefit will not 

be cumulative, that is, any respite hours 

not used in one month will not be 

carried over or banked for use on 

another occasion. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 2, 2021. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14614 Filed 7–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0045] 

Final Priorities—Effective Educator 

Development Division 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces priorities for 

the following programs of the Effective 

Educator Development Division (EED): 

Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants (TSL), Assistance Listing 

Number (ALN) 84.374A; Supporting 

Effective Educator Development (SEED), 

ALN 84.423A; and Teacher Quality 

Partnership (TQP), ALN 84.336S. We 

may use these priorities for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 

and later years. We propose these 

priorities to focus on educator 

development, leadership, and diversity 

in the various EED programs in order to 

improve the quality of teaching and 

school leadership. 

DATES: These priorities 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: This notice 

identifies final priorities for use in three 

Department programs: TSL, SEED, and 

TQP. The purpose of TSL is to assist 

States, local educational agencies, and 

nonprofit organizations to develop, 

implement, improve, or expand 

comprehensive performance-based 

compensation systems (PBCS) or human 

capital management systems (HCMS) for 

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. The SEED program provides 

funding to increase the number of 

highly effective educators by supporting 

the implementation of evidence-based 

practices that prepare, develop, or 

enhance the skills of educators. SEED 

grants allow eligible entities to develop, 

expand, and evaluate practices that can 

serve as models to be sustained and 

disseminated. The purposes of the TQP 

program are to improve student 

achievement; improve the quality of 

prospective and new teachers by 

improving the preparation of 

prospective teachers and enhancing 

professional development activities for 

new teachers; hold teacher preparation 

programs at institutions of higher 

education accountable for preparing 

teachers who meet applicable State 

certification and licensure requirements; 

and recruit highly qualified individuals, 

including minorities and individuals 

from other occupations, into the 

teaching profession. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e– 

3. TSL: Sections 2211–2213 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 20 

U.S.C. 6631–6633. SEED: Section 2242 

of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6672. TQP: 

Sections 200–204 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 

U.S.C. 1021–1022c. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities (NPP) for these programs in 

the Federal Register on April 20, 2021 

(86 FR 20471). The NPP contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities. 

Except for minor editorial and 

technical revisions, there are no 

differences between the proposed 

priorities and these final priorities. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, we received 31 

comments, 23 of which were relevant to 

the proposed priorities and 8 of which 

were not relevant to the proposed 

priorities and were not considered in 

the analysis. Of the 23 comments 

addressing the proposed priorities, 7 

expressed support for the proposed 

priorities but either offered no specific 

recommendations to revise them or 

offered broad recommendations for 

strengthening the educator workforce 

that were outside the scope of these 

proposed priorities. The remaining 16 

comments either expressed 

disagreement or broadly agreed while 

offering suggestions to strengthen the 

proposed priorities. Responses to these 

comments are found in the Analysis of 

the Comments and Changes below. 

Analysis of the Comments and 

Changes: An analysis of the comments 

and of any changes to the proposed 

priorities follows. 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 general 

comments that raise concerns not 

directly related to the NPP. 

Comment: In response to Priority 1— 

Supporting Educators and Their 

Professional Growth, one commenter 

suggested that encouraging educators to 

pursue advanced credentials, such as 

Master’s degrees, may not necessarily 

lead to improvements in educator 

effectiveness and may produce 

unintended incentives for educators to 

leave the profession. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comment regarding the potential limited 

impact on educator effectiveness and 

potential disincentives to educator 

retention that could result from 

encouraging teachers to pursue 

advanced credentials. Creating or 

enhancing professional growth 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
36218 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

opportunities for educators is a chief 

component of the Administration’s 

approach to ensuring that students from 

low-income backgrounds, students of 

color, students with disabilities, and 

other historically underserved students 

have equal access to qualified, 

experienced, and effective educators. 

The concerns outlined by the 

commenter are precisely the reasons 

why this priority promotes a holistic 

approach to supporting teachers and 

school leaders. The priority not only 

targets increased numbers of teachers 

with advanced credentials, which, in 

addition to a Master’s Degree, may 

include National Board Certification or 

an additional credential, such as to 

teach English learners or students with 

special needs. It also promotes 

establishment of career ladders, 

improved pay systems, targeted 

professional development and a range of 

other strategies aimed at improving the 

educator workforce. We think that 

advanced credential attainment is an 

important part of this holistic strategy. 

Thus, we do not think that it is 

necessary to revise the proposed 

priorities to address this specific need. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: In response to Priority 1— 

Supporting Educators and Their 

Professional Growth, one commenter 

recommended that we focus on raising 

teacher salaries to be commensurate 

with that of other professionals whose 

roles require specialized training. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comment regarding economic concerns 

facing educators and low teacher 

salaries may pose potential barriers to 

diverse candidates entering the educator 

profession. While we agree with the 

commenters on the need for educators’ 

salaries to reflect the significance of 

their roles, we note that these priorities 

focus on preparing educators with the 

knowledge, skills, and supports needed 

to support the personal and academic 

growth of all students. We note one of 

the programs intended for potential use 

of these priorities, TSL, provides 

applicants with flexibility to propose 

innovative interventions aimed at 

enhancing educators’ compensation 

based on their performance. For this 

reason, we do not think that it is 

necessary to revise the proposed 

priorities to address teachers’ salaries. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: In response to Priority 2— 

Increasing Educator Diversity, one 

commenter cautioned that factors such 

as the wealth gap and income inequality 

along racial lines may lead to difficulty 

hiring diverse educators. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comment regarding economic concerns 

facing educators and how they may pose 

potential barriers to diverse candidates 

entering the educator profession. We 

note that this priority has been 

established, due in part to the barriers 

to achieving a diverse educator 

workforce the commenter identified. We 

also note that this priority seeks to 

promote a holistic approach to attracting 

and retaining teachers and school 

leaders and we encourage districts and 

localities to leverage the opportunities 

afforded under this priority to design 

evidence-based and promising 

approaches to attracting diverse 

educator candidates. For this reason, we 

do not think that it is necessary to revise 

the proposed priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed support for both priorities, 

while suggesting a range of specific 

revisions. One commenter 

recommended changes to emphasize the 

importance of antibias and antiracist 

education to our existing workforce. On 

the topic of cultural responsiveness, 

multiple commenters cited research 

emphasizing the importance of 

culturally responsive school leadership 

and recommended specific revisions to 

highlight the importance of culturally 

responsive and culturally sustaining 

teaching practices. Another commenter 

recommended changes to both priorities 

to promote development and 

diversification of school leaders. With 

regard to professional development and 

professional learning of educators, one 

commenter recommended that the 

Department focus on learning 

communities, leadership, resources, 

data, learning designs, implementation, 

and outcomes. Another commenter 

noted the significant role of traditional 

educator preparation programs in 

advancing the goals of these priorities, 

while another commenter, focusing on 

the SEED program, recommended that 

we revise the priorities to more clearly 

highlight the role of high-quality, nontraditional educator preparation 

programs. A separate commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priorities to emphasize the long-term 

sustainability of project activities 

implemented under these priorities. 

Additionally, one commenter stressed 

the importance of prioritizing growyour-own recruitment approaches. 

Discussion: We appreciate each 

commenter’s suggestions and recognize 

the significance of the specific areas 

they recommend be emphasized in the 

proposed priorities. We note that several 

of these suggested items, such as ‘‘grow 

your own’’ programs, diversification of 

school leaders, and placing an emphasis 

on data and outcomes, are directly 

addressed in the priorities. We also 

acknowledge and appreciate the other 

suggestions made by commenters that 

highlight specific strategies or activities 

that could be specified in the priority. 

We note that these priorities are 

intended for use in discretionary grant 

programs and are designed to offer 

districts and localities flexibility to 

shape their local instructional 

programming around innovative 

initiatives that meet their distinct needs. 

We think that the priorities, as written, 

provide an equal measure of specificity 

and flexibility for prospective 

applicants to address the goals of 

supporting educators and their 

professional growth, as well as 

increasing educator diversity. Finally, 

we note that these suggested activities 

are already allowable under these 

programs, in addition to other programs 

funded by the Department, and are 

reflective of the Department’s overall 

vision for the improvement of the 

educator workforce. 

Upon further review, the Department 

believes that additional clarity would be 

helpful for applicants with respect to 

their plans to implement educator 

diversity practices. We are revising 

Priority 2 to combine and clarify the 

activities in proposed paragraphs (a) 

and (h). 

Changes: In Priority 2, we have 

removed proposed paragraphs (a) and 

(h) and added a new paragraph (g) that 

encompasses activities related to data 

systems, timelines, and action plans for 

promoting educator and school leader 

diversity. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

priorities but recommended we add 

language that specifically references 

sexual orientation, gender identity, and 

gender expression to add clarity around 

what is meant by the term ‘‘diversity.’’ 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

importance of being clear about the 

meaning of ‘‘diversity.’’ The Department 

has chosen to use the term ‘‘diversity’’ 

to describe and embrace all students 

and educators without exception. Thus, 

we do not think that it is necessary to 

revise the priorities in response to these 

specific recommendations. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities: 

Priority 1—Supporting Educators and 

Their Professional Growth. 

Projects that are designed to increase 

the number and percentage of wellprepared, experienced, effective, and 

diverse educators—which may include 

one or more of the following: Teachers, 

principals, paraprofessionals, or other 

school leaders as defined in section 

8101(44) of the ESEA—through 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36219 

evidence-based strategies (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) incorporating 

one or more of the following: 

(a) Adopting, implementing, or 

expanding efforts to recruit, select, 

prepare, support, and develop talented, 

diverse individuals to serve as mentors, 

instructional coaches, principals, or 

school leaders in high-need schools (as 

may be defined in the program’s 

authorizing statute or regulations) who 

have the knowledge and skills to 

significantly improve instruction. 

(b) Implementing practices or 

strategies that support high-need 

schools (as may be defined in the 

program’s authorizing statute or 

regulations) in recruiting, preparing, 

hiring, supporting, developing, and 

retaining qualified, experienced, 

effective, diverse educators. 

(c) Increasing the number of teachers 

with State or national advanced 

educator certification or certification in 

a teacher shortage area, as determined 

by the Secretary, such as special 

education or bilingual education. 

(d) Providing high-quality 

professional development opportunities 

to all educators in high-need schools (as 

may be defined in the program’s 

authorizing statute or regulations) on 

meeting the needs of diverse learners, 

including students with disabilities and 

English learners. 

Proposed Priority 2—Increasing 

Educator Diversity. 

Under this priority, applicants must 

develop projects that are designed to 

improve the recruitment, outreach, 

preparation, support, development, and 

retention of a diverse educator 

workforce through adopting, 

implementing, or expanding one or 

more of the following: 

(a) High-quality, comprehensive 

teacher preparation programs that have 

a track record of attracting, supporting, 

graduating, and placing 

underrepresented teacher candidates, 

and that include one year of highquality clinical experiences (prior to 

becoming the teacher of record) in highneed schools (as may be defined in the 

program’s authorizing statute or 

regulations). 

(b) High-quality, comprehensive 

teacher preparation programs in 

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (eligible institutions under 

part B of title III and subpart 4 of part 

A title VII of the HEA), Hispanic Serving 

Institutions (eligible institutions under 

section 502 of the HEA), Tribal Colleges 

and Universities (eligible institutions 

under section 316 of the HEA), or other 

Minority Serving Institutions (eligible 

institutions under title III and title V of 

the HEA) that include one year of highquality clinical experiences (prior to 

becoming the teacher of record) in highneed schools (as may be defined in the 

program’s authorizing statute or 

regulations) and that incorporate best 

practices for attracting, supporting, 

graduating, and placing 

underrepresented teacher candidates. 

(c) Reforms to teacher preparation 

programs to improve the diversity of 

teacher candidates, including changes to 

ensure underrepresented teacher 

candidates are fully represented in 

program admission, completion, 

placement, and retention as educators. 

(d) Educator candidate support and 

preparation strategies and practices 

focused on underrepresented teacher 

candidates, and which may include 

‘‘grow your own programs,’’ which 

typically recruit middle or high school 

students, paraprofessionals, or other 

school staff and provide them with clear 

pathways and intensive support to enter 

into the teaching profession. 

(e) Professional growth and leadership 

opportunities for diverse educators, 

including opportunities to influence 

school, district, or State policies and 

practices in order to improve educator 

diversity. 

(f) High-quality professional 

development on addressing bias in 

instructional practice and fostering an 

inclusive, equitable, and supportive 

workplace and school climate for 

educators. 

(g) Data systems, timelines, and action 

plans for promoting inclusive and biasfree human resources practices that 

promote and support development of 

educator and school leader diversity. 

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 these priorities, 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 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 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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