36656 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 2021–14862 Filed 7–12–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2020–OSERS–0179] 

Final Priority, Requirement, and 

Definitions—National Comprehensive 

Center on Improving Literacy for 

Students With Disabilities 

AGENCY: Offices of Elementary and 

Secondary Education and Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priority, requirement, and 

definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces a priority, 

requirement, and definitions for the 

National Comprehensive Center on 

Improving Literacy for Students with 

Disabilities program (Comprehensive 

Centers program), Assistance Listing 

Number 84.283D. The Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESEA), requires the Secretary to 

establish a comprehensive center for 

students at risk of not attaining full 

literacy skills due to a disability. The 

Department may use the priority, 

requirement, and definitions for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 

and later years. We will use the priority, 

requirement, and definitions to award a 

cooperative agreement for a 

comprehensive center designed to 

improve literacy skills for students at 

risk of not attaining full literacy skills 

due to a disability. 

DATES: Effective August 12, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6715. Email: 

Kristen.Rhoads@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 

Comprehensive Centers program 

supports the establishment of not fewer 

than 20 comprehensive centers to 

provide capacity building services to 

State educational agencies (SEAs), 

regional educational agencies (REAs), 

local educational agencies (LEAs), and 

schools that improve educational 

outcomes for all students, close 

achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction. The purpose of 

the National Comprehensive Center on 

Improving Literacy for Students with 

Disabilities (Center) is to identify or 

develop evidence-based literacy 

assessment tools and professional 

development activities and identify 

evidence-based instruction, strategies, 

and accommodations for students at risk 

of not attaining full literacy skills due to 

a disability, including dyslexia 

impacting reading or writing, or 

developmental delay impacting reading, 

writing, language processing, 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning. The Center will also 

disseminate its products and 

information on evidence-based literacy 

to families, SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and 

schools. 

Program Authority: Section 203 of the 

Educational Technical Assistance Act of 

2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9602) and 

section 2244 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

6674). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority, requirement, and definitions 

(NPP) for this program in the Federal 

Register on March 12, 2021 (86 FR 

14048). The NPP contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priority, 

requirement, and definitions. 

There are differences between the 

NPP and this notice of final priority, 

requirement, and definitions (NFP) as 

discussed in the Analysis of Comments 

and Changes section of this document. 

The substantive changes include not 

establishing a limit on reimbursement of 

indirect costs, adding a requirement 

related to features of screening 

assessments, and expanding who the 

Center involves when soliciting a 

diversity of perspectives in the 

development and implementation of 

services. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation to comment in the NPP, 27 

parties submitted comments on the 

proposed priority, requirement, and 

definitions. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address comments 

that raised concerns not directly related 

to the proposed priority, requirement, 

and definitions. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and 

changes in the priority, requirement, 

and definitions since publication of the 

NPP follows. 

The Department received 27 

comments, which addressed several 

specific topics, including limiting 

reimbursement of indirect costs, 

supporting an external evaluator, 

meeting the needs of multiple 

populations and settings, implementing 

project services, measuring Center 

outcomes, and managing the Center and 

adequacy of resources. Each topic is 

addressed below. 

General Comments 

Comment: All commenters expressed 

overall support for the proposed Center. 

One commenter stressed the importance 

of this Center for addressing the needs 

of students in early childhood programs 

through 12th grade. Another commenter 

noted that the Center could be 

important for ensuring quality 

education and creating equitable 

learning environments for students with 

disabilities in both charter and 

traditional public schools. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments and agrees 

with the commenters. The Center to be 

funded under this program will provide 

necessary and valuable technical 

assistance (TA) related to improving 

literacy outcomes for students at risk of 

not attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

removing language related to competing 

in the global economy. The reviewer 

thought that the phrase adds undue 

stress for students with disabilities. 

Discussion: The mission of the 

Department includes ‘‘promoting 

student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness.’’ This 

mission applies to all students, 

including students with disabilities and 

we think it is a reasonable expectation 

to have a broad goal of preparing all 

students for the global economy. 

Changes: None. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36657 

Directed Question 1—Limiting 

Reimbursement of Indirect Costs 

Comment: Commenters had differing 

opinions on whether the Department 

should limit the reimbursement of 

indirect costs. Two commenters were 

opposed to establishing a limit on 

reimbursement of indirect costs or a 

cap. They stated that a limit would 

reduce the number of qualified 

applicants, which would 

correspondingly reduce competition. 

Specifically, the two commenters noted 

that a limit would make it cost 

prohibitive for some organizations to 

compete for the grant, as they may not 

be able to absorb any unrecovered 

indirect costs. They also expressed 

concerns that the implementation of an 

indirect cost rate limit would not impact 

each applicant equally or result in equal 

savings to the government because 

categories of indirect costs vary across 

organizations. Finally, the commenters 

noted that indirect costs are established 

and audited through a lengthy and 

rigorous process administered by the 

cognizant agency and that the already 

negotiated rate should be appropriate 

for this program. 

In contrast, three commenters 

supported establishing a cap on the 

indirect cost rate. One commenter 

supported the range of 20 to 35 percent 

proposed by the Department. Another 

commenter recommended a rate 

between 45 and 55 percent. The third 

commenter wanted to know the 

percentage of current grantees that had 

indirect cost rates higher than 35 

percent and recommended increasing 

the cap if that percentage was high. 

One commenter sought clarification 

on how the Department defined 

administrative costs if the Department 

set a limit to indirect cost 

reimbursement. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the stakeholder input it 

received in response to the directed 

question on the Department’s 

considering potentially limiting indirect 

costs. We considered this potential 

requirement based on 2 CFR 

200.414(c)(1), which allows a Federal 

awarding agency to use an indirect cost 

rate different from the negotiated rate 

when required by Federal statute or 

regulation or when approved by a 

Federal awarding agency head based on 

documented justification when the 

Federal awarding agency implements, 

and makes publicly available, the 

policies, procedures, and general 

decision making criteria that their 

programs will follow to seek and justify 

deviations from negotiated rates. 

Federal discretionary grantees have 

often historically been reimbursed for 

indirect costs at the rate that each 

grantee negotiates with its cognizant 

Federal agency. At this time, given the 

mixed and limited public comments 

and upon further reflection, the 

Department has decided not to impose 

a limit on the indirect costs for this 

competition and relies instead on the 

negotiated rate process with cognizant 

Federal agencies. 

Changes: The final requirement does 

not include an indirect cost rate cap. 

Directed Question 2—Supporting an 

External or Third-Party Evaluator 

Comment: Commenters had differing 

opinions on the value of an external or 

third-party evaluator. Some commenters 

stated that an external or third-party 

evaluator would result in a high-quality 

impartial evaluation of the Center’s 

success and improve the quality of the 

Center services and products. 

Other commenters did not think that 

an external or third-party reviewer was 

necessary. One commenter noted that 

the role of the evaluator and 

expectations for evaluation are more 

important than whether the evaluator 

was internal or external to the Center. 

The commenter noted that the currently 

funded projects in the Comprehensive 

Centers Program Network successfully 

utilize a variety of evaluation 

approaches involving external and 

internal evaluators. 

Two commenters noted that an 

external evaluator would unnecessarily 

divert funds from other Center 

activities. Both commenters noted that 

providing crucial TA to teachers and 

educators should be prioritized over 

evaluation activities. One commenter 

stated that an external evaluator would 

also divert funds from conducting 

important formative evaluation 

activities to determine the quality, 

relevance, and usefulness of the Center’s 

work and that the size of the award, in 

general, was not sufficient for 

conducting a rigorous evaluation of 

Center activities. One commenter 

pointed out that in a post-pandemic 

climate, having more funds dedicated to 

services may be particularly important 

given that students would likely have 

more academic needs when they return 

to in-person instruction. This 

commenter recommended exploring 

low-cost evaluation efforts such as the 

Department conducting the evaluation. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the commenters who recommend 

requiring a third-party or external 

evaluator. A third-party or external 

evaluator will provide objectivity and 

credibility in evaluating the Center’s 

success; provide input to Center staff to 

support mid-course corrections; bring 

additional technical expertise in 

evaluation methodology, statistics, or 

related topics; and allow Center staff to 

devote their attention to project 

implementation. Despite potentially 

diverting funds from important TA 

services or products, a third-party or 

external evaluator will be crucial for 

developing and implementing a strong 

evaluation plan and ensuring the 

effectiveness of those TA services and 

products that are provided and 

developed. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether the Center would be 

independent from or integrated with the 

current Comprehensive Centers Program 

Network. Specifically, the commenter 

wanted to know whether the Center 

would be part of the evaluation of the 

Comprehensive Centers program being 

conducted by the Department’s Institute 

of Education Sciences (IES) and 

required to utilize the network’s 

evaluation-related resources and data 

collection protocols and activities. 

Discussion: The Department will 

encourage collaboration between the 

Center and the network; however, the 

Center will have its own set of 

requirements. It will not be part of the 

Comprehensive Centers program 

evaluation conducted by IES. Similarly, 

the network’s evaluation-related 

resources and data collection protocols 

and activities will not be required, 

though the Department encourages 

applicants to consider adopting or 

adapting them as part of their evaluation 

work. The resources will be shared with 

the Center when funded, and the 

Department will work with the Center 

and its third-party evaluator in aligning 

its evaluation plan. 

Changes: None. 

Meeting the Needs of Multiple 

Populations and Settings 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adopting a definition of 

the term ‘‘families’’ that includes the 

variety of individuals who care for and 

interact with students with disabilities 

in their home lives. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that a variety of individuals care for, 

interact with, and play important roles 

in the lives of children and students 

with disabilities in their home lives. We 

decline to define the term ‘‘families’’ 

because we understand that family 

structures may vary and encompass 

individuals with different relationships 

to each other. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted 

gender differences and potential referral 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
36658 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

bias in identification of reading 

disabilities with male students being 

identified more often than female 

students. The commenter recommended 

additional language be added to the 

notice to ensure that females receive 

adequate testing, attention, and 

resources. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

the commenter for the comment and 

recognizes that gender differences and 

referral bias in identification of 

disabilities have been documented in 

the research literature. While the Center 

will not be evaluating or identifying 

students as having a disability, the 

priority requires the Center to ensure 

equal access and treatment for members 

of groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, sex, age, or disability. 

The grantee will ensure that products 

and services meet the needs of these 

recipients. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters observed 

that the priority specifically named 

dyslexia and did not address other 

disability categories. One commenter 

asked if other disability categories 

would be included or excluded from 

Center activities. The second 

commenter recommended expanding 

the focus of the Center to address the 

literacy needs of students with 

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

and Autism Spectrum Disorder. The 

commenter noted that children with 

these disabilities also struggle with 

attaining full literacy skills and, 

therefore, need to receive evidencebased literacy practices. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that students from a variety of disability 

groups do not attain full literacy skills 

due to their disabilities and require 

evidence-based instructional and 

assessment practices. Section 2244 of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6674) requires that 

the Center address the needs of students 

at risk of not attaining full literacy skills 

due to a disability, including dyslexia 

impacting reading or writing, or 

developmental delay impacting reading, 

writing, language processing, 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning. In meeting this 

requirement, an applicant could include 

students with Attention-Deficit/ 

Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism 

Spectrum Disorder, or other disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended defining the term 

‘‘dyslexia’’ using the definition in the 

Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society 

Transformed Safely Transitioning Every 

Person Act (First Step Act). The 

commenter noted that the definition in 

the First Step Act is the most up-to-date 

definition of dyslexia and the only 

definition of dyslexia in Federal statute. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

the commenter for the comment. 

Neither ESEA nor the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

includes a definition of dyslexia. 

Dyslexia is identified as an example of 

a condition that could enable a student 

to be eligible under IDEA’s specific 

learning disability category. In addition, 

States have developed their own 

definitions of dyslexia. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adopting the definition of 

‘‘dyslexia screening program’’ from the 

First Step Act noting that the Center 

should provide TA and disseminate 

information on screeners that are 

evidence-based, psychometrically valid, 

affordable to schools, efficient to scale, 

and readily available to use as soon as 

possible. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that screening assessments for dyslexia 

and other literacy-related disabilities 

should have the features that the 

reviewer described. Instead of adopting 

the definition from the First Step Act, 

the Department has added a 

requirement in the Quality of Project 

Services section of the priority. The 

requirement states that applicants 

should address the current research on 

screening assessments for dyslexia and 

other literacy-related disabilities that are 

evidence-based, psychometrically valid, 

free or low-cost, efficient to scale, and 

readily available for use. 

Changes: The Department has added 

a requirement related to the features of 

screening assessments in paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii) of the Quality of Project 

Services section. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Center have a 

greater focus on meeting the needs of 

teachers and students who are 

participating in remote learning 

environments due to the current novel 

coronavirus 2019 (COVID–19) 

pandemic. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

the commenter for the comment and 

recognizes the unique challenges that 

students, teachers, and schools are 

experiencing due to COVID–19 as well 

as the critical role that remote learning 

plays when regular classroom 

instruction is disrupted. The priority is 

for improving the implementation of 

evidence-based literacy practices in 

teacher classroom and remote learning 

environments. The grantee will ensure 

that products and services meet the 

needs of teachers and students in both 

types of environments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that the Center may not meet 

the needs of charter schools noting that 

charter schools may differ from 

traditional public schools and districts. 

The commenter recommended requiring 

descriptions of plans to reach charter 

schools and evaluating proposals for the 

quality of their charter school plan. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

the commenter for the comment and 

agrees that appropriately serving 

students with disabilities is often an 

issue for charter schools. The Center 

should address the needs of all schools 

serving students with disabilities. As 

such, applicants should propose to 

develop TA products and services that 

address the needs of students in charter 

schools. Applicants could include a 

plan in Appendix A of their application. 

However, we do not believe it is 

necessary to require a plan to reach 

charter schools or evaluate proposals 

based on the quality of this plan. 

Changes: None. 

Implementing Project Services 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

institutions of higher education preservice training programs are not 

specified as recipients of intensive, 

sustained TA. The commenter pointed 

out that pre-service teachers need 

training in the science of reading and 

that State governments are examining 

college preparation programs in this 

area. The commenter noted that this 

Center could be a major catalyst in 

supporting this work. 

Discussion: Section 2244(b)(5) of 

ESEA requires the Center to disseminate 

its products to regionally diverse SEAs, 

REAs, LEAs, and schools, including, as 

appropriate, through partnerships with 

other comprehensive centers established 

under section 203 of the Educational 

Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (20 

U.S.C. 9602), and regional educational 

laboratories established under section 

174 of the Education Sciences Reform 

Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564). The 

products developed by the Center could 

be disseminated to and used in preservice training programs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters noted 

the importance of collaboration and 

outreach to other federally funded 

Centers as well as professional 

organizations and associations with 

literacy expertise, who represent 

disability groups, or who represent 

educators and service providers for 

students with disabilities. One 

commenter recognized that in special 

education, there is often a lack of 

collaboration between special education 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36659 

and other educators when sharing 

expertise and resources. Another 

commenter noted that at least a dozen 

currently funded Regional 

Comprehensive Centers include literacy 

as part of their intensive, high-leverage 

capacity building TA and that wellplanned collaboration between those 

centers and this Center would benefit 

TA providers and TA recipients. One 

commenter encouraged early outreach 

to related professional organizations. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that coordination between this Center 

and other federally funded TA projects 

focused on literacy as well as early 

outreach to related professional 

organizations would benefit the Center 

and its TA recipients. The Department 

will work with the Center to facilitate 

coordination and collaboration with 

similar Department-funded projects and 

professional organizations focused on 

improving literacy for students with 

disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended embedding implicit bias 

training in Center activities, noting that 

implicit bias about individuals with 

disabilities is pervasive in society. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

the commenter and agrees that 

individuals with disabilities face 

implicit bias in school and life. As part 

of addressing the needs of students at 

risk for not attaining full literacy skills 

due to a disability, including dyslexia 

impacting reading or writing, or 

developmental delay impacting reading, 

writing, language processing, 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning, an applicant could also 

include implicit bias training as part of 

its TA. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended requiring that the Center 

conduct a review of States that have 

passed laws related to screening and 

instruction for students with dyslexia 

and tailoring TA to aid effective 

implementation of these laws. 

Discussion: We do not believe that it 

is necessary to require this activity. The 

priority requires the Center to address 

current and emerging training and 

information needs of SEAs, REAs, LEAs, 

TA centers, schools, and practitioners 

related to selecting and implementing 

classroom and remote learning 

environment evidence-based practices 

(EBPs) that will improve literacy 

outcomes for students with disabilities, 

including students with dyslexia 

impacting reading or writing, or 

developmental delay impacting reading, 

writing, language processing, 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning. It is expected that 

applicants will have knowledge of State 

laws related to screening and 

instruction for dyslexia. In addition, the 

grantee will provide targeted, 

specialized TA to a variety of recipients, 

including SEAs, as part of its project 

services. This targeted, specialized TA 

could include conducting a review of 

State laws and tailoring TA for SEAs 

based on their needs. 

Changes: None. 

Measuring Center Outcomes 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended requiring parent or 

family perspectives or feedback as a 

Center outcome measure. 

Discussion: The Center is required to 

provide TA to a variety of recipients 

including parents or families, SEAs, 

REAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start, and 

other early childhood programs and 

ensure that the products and services 

meet the intended recipients. In meeting 

these requirements, an applicant could 

include family or parent perspectives, 

including perspectives from 

organizations such as the OSEP-funded 

Parent Training and Information 

Centers, or feedback as a Center 

outcome measure. However, we do not 

believe it is necessary that perspectives 

or feedback from any of the recipients 

be required as a Center outcome 

measure. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

requiring improvement in noncognitive 

skills, such as effort, curiosity, 

inquisitiveness, as a Center outcome. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes the importance of 

noncognitive skills for student 

achievement. While the Center is 

required to address literacy outcomes, 

an applicant could also include 

noncognitive skills as part of its project 

services and evaluation. We do not 

believe that it is necessary to require 

noncognitive skills as a Center outcome. 

Changes: None. 

Managing the Center and Adequacy of 

Resources 

Comment: Two commenters 

addressed the requirement that the 

project director should be, at minimum, 

0.5 full-time equivalency (FTE) 

throughout the project. One commenter 

asked whether it would be permissible 

to split the 0.5 FTE for the project 

director and distribute the FTE at the 

applicant’s discretion to other Center 

personnel or co-project directors. The 

second commenter noted that the 

complexity of the scope of work 

requires a substantial involvement of 

leadership and expertise in order to 

result in a successful Center. This 

commenter recommended requiring a 

project director at a minimum of 0.75 

FTE or two co-project directors at a 

minimum of 0.5 FTE each or a project 

director at a minimum of 0.5 FTE and 

a deputy director at 0.75–1.0 FTE. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that it is necessary to have a single 

project director responsible for 

understanding and coordinating 

Center’s activities to ensure that they are 

conducted effectively and efficiently. 

Accordingly, the Department agrees that 

the project director should dedicate 

significant time to this Center. Based on 

the Department’s experience with this 

Center, having one project director at a 

minimum of 0.5 FTE is necessary to 

oversee the Center’s complex and 

overlapping activities and produce highquality, relevant products and services 

that have strong scientific integrity. The 

Department also agrees that any coproject directors or deputy directors 

should also have a significant time 

investment in the project; however, the 

applicant can distribute the FTE of other 

Center personnel at its discretion. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Center to incorporate 

input from a variety of educators, 

including general education teachers, 

special education teachers, librarians, 

paraprofessionals, and specialized 

instructional support personnel, who 

serve a broad diversity of students in the 

Center activities. The commenter noted 

that educators offer valuable 

perspectives on specific types of literacy 

instruction to best address the differing 

populations of students they serve. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

the commenter and agrees that 

educators bring critical perspectives 

related to all Center services and 

activities. The proposed priority 

required applicants to address how the 

project will benefit from a diversity of 

perspectives, including those of 

families, general and special education 

teachers, TA providers, researchers, 

institutions of higher education, and 

policy makers, among others, in its 

development and operation as part of 

the Quality of the Management Plan 

requirements. We agree that expanding 

those requirements to include 

paraprofessionals, principals, other 

school leaders, and specialized 

instructional support personnel would 

improve Center services and activities. 

Changes: Paraprofessionals, 

principals, other school leaders, and 

specialized instructional support 

personnel were added to paragraph 

(e)(4) of the final Priority as groups to 

provide diverse perspectives that will 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
36660 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Applicants are encouraged to identify or 

develop professional development for using 

evidence-based screening assessments for early 

identification of children in early childhood or 

prekindergarten programs as well. 

benefit the development and operation 

of the Center. 

Comment: One commenter asked if 

the notice inviting applications would 

require cost sharing and, if not, would 

the Department provide more detail 

about its expectations for or examples of 

how applicants could use non-project 

resources in paragraph 

(b)(5)(iv)(D)(6)(iii) of the final Priority to 

achieve the intended project outcomes. 

Discussion: Cost sharing is not 

required in this program. Examples of 

ways to use non-project resources 

include the following: Using in-kind 

contributions of FTE from project staff, 

expert consultants, or communications 

specialists; utilizing, adapting, and 

disseminating previously developed 

high-quality resources, web-based 

products, services, or questionnaires; 

and establishing partnerships with 

professional organizations to assist with 

disseminating information to a broader 

audience. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority: 

National Comprehensive Center on 

Improving Literacy for Students with 

Disabilities. 

Background: 

Section 2244 of the ESEA requires the 

Secretary to establish a comprehensive 

center on students at risk of not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability. Comprehensive centers are 

typically administered by the Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

(OESE). OESE is funding this Center; 

however, because of the Center’s subject 

matter, it will be administered jointly by 

OESE and OSEP in the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

(OSERS). 

The project is designed to improve 

implementation of evidence-based 

literacy practices in both teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environments. With respect to remote 

learning, the priority is intended to 

ensure that teachers have the training 

and support they need to implement 

evidence-based literacy practices during 

remote instruction for students with 

disabilities, including students with 

dyslexia impacting reading or writing, 

or developmental delay impacting 

reading, writing, language processing, 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning. Remote learning plays a 

critical role in regular instruction and 

can serve as a crucial link allowing 

high-quality teaching and learning to 

continue when regular instruction is 

disrupted. 

Priority: 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

a cooperative agreement to establish and 

operate a National Comprehensive 

Center on Improving Literacy for 

Students with Disabilities (Center) for 

children in early childhood education 

programs through high school. The 

Center must— 

(a) Identify or develop free or low-cost 

evidence-based assessment tools for 

identifying students at risk of not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability, including dyslexia impacting 

reading or writing, or developmental 

delay impacting reading, writing, 

language processing, comprehension, or 

executive functioning; 

(b) Identify evidence-based literacy 

instruction, strategies, and 

accommodations, including assistive 

technology, designed to meet the 

specific needs of such students; 

(c) Provide families of such students 

with information to assist such students; 

(d) Identify or develop evidence-based 

professional development for teachers, 

paraprofessionals, principals, other 

school leaders, and specialized 

instructional support personnel to— 

(1) Understand early indicators of 

students at risk of not attaining full 

literacy skills due to a disability, 

including dyslexia impacting reading or 

writing, or developmental delay 

impacting reading, writing, language 

processing, comprehension, or 

executive functioning; 

(2) Use evidence-based screening 

assessments for early identification of 

such students beginning not later than 

kindergarten; 1 and 

(3) Implement evidence-based 

instruction designed to meet the specific 

needs of such students; and 

(e) Disseminate the products of the 

comprehensive center to regionally 

diverse SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools, 

including, as appropriate, through 

partnerships with other comprehensive 

centers established under section 203 of 

the Educational Technical Assistance 

Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), and 

regional educational laboratories 

established under section 174 of the 

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 

(20 U.S.C. 9564). 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority, which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed 

project will— 

(1) Address current and emerging 

training and information needs of SEAs, 

REAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, and 

practitioners to select and implement 

teacher classroom and remote learning 

environment evidence-based practices 

(EBPs) that will improve literacy 

outcomes for students with disabilities, 

including students with dyslexia 

impacting reading or writing, or 

developmental delay impacting reading, 

writing, language processing, 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning. To meet this requirement, 

the applicant must— 

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

and emerging EBPs, which can be used 

in reading and literacy-related teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environment instruction, screening, 

assessment, and identification or 

diagnosis of students at risk for not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability, including dyslexia impacting 

reading or writing, or developmental 

delay impacting reading, writing, 

language processing, comprehension, or 

executive functioning. This includes 

demonstrating knowledge of current and 

emerging reading and literacy-related 

EBPs for students who are English 

learners; students from a variety of 

settings (e.g., rural, suburban, urban); 

students from low-income families; and 

other educationally disadvantaged 

students; or 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of, 

previous experience with, and results of 

using creative approaches and 

implementing in-person and virtual TA 

strategies to provide capacity-building 

services and disseminate teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environment EBPs to a variety of 

entities, including parents, SEAs, REAs, 

LEAs, schools, Head Start, and other 

early childhood programs; 

(2) Demonstrate a record of improving 

outcomes in literacy achievement for 

students at risk for not attaining full 

literacy skills due to a disability, 

including dyslexia impacting reading or 

writing, or developmental delay 

impacting reading, writing, language 

processing, comprehension, or 

executive functioning, in order to better 

prepare them to compete in a global 

economy; and 

(3) Demonstrate a record of improving 

the adoption, implementation, and 

sustainment of teacher classroom and 

remote learning environment EBPs in 

literacy instruction for students at risk 

for not attaining full literacy skills due 

to a disability, including dyslexia 

impacting reading or writing, or 

developmental delay impacting reading, 

writing, language processing, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36661 

comprehension, or executive 

functioning. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment 

for members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

sex, age, or disability. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Identify the needs of the intended 

recipients for TA and information; and 

(ii) Ensure that products and services 

meet the needs of the intended 

recipients of the grant; 

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended short-term, intermediate, and 

long-term outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) A five-year plan for the Center to 

identify current and emerging training 

and information needs and to address 

the priority; 

(ii) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(iii) In Appendix A, the logic model 

(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which 

the proposed project will achieve its 

intended outcomes that depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, 

and intended short-term, intermediate, 

and long-term outcomes of the proposed 

project; 

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and 

provide a copy in Appendix A) to 

develop project plans and activities, and 

describe any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, or theories, 

as well as the presumed relationships or 

linkages among these variables, and any 

empirical support for this framework; 

Note: The following websites provide more 

information on logic models and conceptual 

frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/ 

logicModel, www.osepideasthatwork.org/ 

resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tadproject-logic-model-and-conceptualframework, and www.federalregister.gov/d/ 

2019–06583. 

(4) Be based on current research and 

make use of EBPs in the development 

and delivery of its products and 

services. To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environment EBPs for literacy 

instruction for students at risk for not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability, including dyslexia impacting 

reading or writing, or developmental 

delay impacting reading, writing, 

language processing, comprehension, or 

executive functioning; 

(ii) The current research on teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environment EBPs for assessing 

students at risk for not attaining full 

literacy skills due to a disability, 

including dyslexia impacting reading or 

writing, or developmental delay 

impacting reading, writing, language 

processing, comprehension, or 

executive functioning. This should 

include the current research on 

screening assessments for dyslexia and 

other literacy-related disabilities that are 

evidence-based, psychometrically valid, 

free or low-cost, efficient to scale, and 

readily available for use; and 

(iii) The current research about adult 

learning principles in in-person and 

virtual settings and implementation 

science that will inform the proposed 

TA; and 

(5) Develop products or refine or 

update publicly available existing 

products and provide in-person and 

virtual services that are of high quality 

and sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended measurable 

outcomes of the proposed project. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base in teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environment literacy instruction for 

students at risk of not attaining full 

literacy skills due to a disability; 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA, which must 

identify the intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA, which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach, a 

description of new or existing publicly 

available products that may be used and 

services that the Center proposes to 

make available, and the expected impact 

of those products and services under 

this approach; and 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of potential TA recipients 

to work with the project, assessing, at a 

minimum, their current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the local level; and 

(iv) Its proposed approach to 

intensive, sustained TA, which must 

identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services, a description of new or 

existing publicly available products that 

may be used and services that the 

Center proposes to make available, and 

the expected impact of those products 

and services under this approach; 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of the target audiences to 

work with the project, including their 

commitment to the initiative, alignment 

of the initiative to their needs, current 

infrastructure, available resources, and 

ability to build capacity at the SEA, 

REA, LEA, school, and early childhood 

education program levels; 

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting 

SEAs, REAs, and LEAs to build or 

enhance in-person and virtual training 

systems that include capacity-building 

services and professional development 

based on adult learning principles and 

coaching; and 

(D) Its proposed plan for working with 

appropriate levels of the education 

system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA 

providers, districts, schools, early 

childhood education programs, families) 

to ensure that there is communication 

between each level and that there are 

systems in place to support the use of 

teacher classroom and remote learning 

environment EBPs for literacy 

instruction; 

(6) Partner with the National 

Comprehensive Center and at least one 

of the other federally funded 

comprehensive centers, regional 

educational laboratories, equity 

assistance centers, OSEP- and other 

related federally funded TA Centers, 

parent training and information and 

community parent resource centers 

funded by the Department and OSEP 

(e.g., Center for Parent Information and 

Resources and Parent Technical 

Assistance Centers), and other related 

organizations to refine or develop 

products and implement services that 

maximize efficiency. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

use non-project resources to achieve the 

intended project outcomes; and 

(7) Develop a dissemination plan that 

describes how the applicant will 

systematically distribute information, 

products, and services to varied 

intended audiences, using a variety of 

in-person and virtual dissemination 

strategies, to promote awareness and use 

of the Center’s products and services. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation,’’ include an 

evaluation plan for the project 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
36662 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

developed in consultation with and 

implemented by a third-party evaluator. 

The evaluation plan must— 

(1) Articulate formative and 

summative evaluation questions, 

including important process and 

outcome evaluation questions, that are 

linked directly to the project’s proposed 

logic model required in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this notice; 

(2) Describe how progress in and 

fidelity of implementation, as well as 

project short-term, intermediate, and 

long-term outcomes, will be measured 

to answer the evaluation questions. 

Specify the measures and associated 

instruments or sources for data 

appropriate to the evaluation questions. 

Include information regarding reliability 

and validity of measures where 

appropriate; 

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing 

data and how data collected as part of 

this plan will be used to inform and 

improve service delivery over the course 

of the project and to refine the proposed 

logic model and evaluation plan, 

including subsequent data collection; 

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting 

the evaluation and include staff 

assignments for completing the plan. 

The timeline must indicate that the data 

will be available annually for the annual 

performance report (APR); and 

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each 

budget year to cover the costs of 

developing or refining the evaluation 

plan in collaboration with a third-party 

evaluator and the costs associated with 

the implementation of the evaluation 

plan by the third-party evaluator. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of resources and quality of 

project personnel,’’ how— 

(1) The proposed project will ensure 

equal access for employment for all, 

including those who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, sex, age, religion, or 

disability; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications, 

subject-matter expertise, and technical 

experience to carry out the proposed 

activities, achieve the project’s intended 

outcomes, and develop ongoing 

partnerships with leading experts and 

organizations nationwide to inform 

project activities; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the management plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated and how these allocations are 

appropriate and adequate to achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes. The 

identified project director should be, at 

minimum, 0.5 full-time equivalency 

throughout the project period; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality, 

relevant, and useful to recipients; and 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives, 

including those of families, general and 

special education teachers, 

paraprofessionals, principals, other 

school leaders, specialized instructional 

support personnel, TA providers, 

researchers, institutions of higher 

education, and policy makers, among 

others, in its development and 

operation. 

(f) Address the following additional 

application requirements. The applicant 

must— 

(1) Include, in Appendix A, 

personnel-loading charts and timelines, 

as applicable, to illustrate the 

management plan described in the 

narrative; 

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance 

at the following: 

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off 

meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, 

after receipt of the award, and an annual 

planning meeting in Washington, DC, or 

virtually, with the OSEP project officer, 

OESE staff, and other relevant staff 

during each subsequent year of the 

project period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference must be 

held between the OSEP project officer and 

the grantee’s project director or other 

authorized representative; 

(ii) A two and one-half day project 

directors’ conference in Washington, 

DC, or a virtual conference, during each 

year of the project period; 

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to 

attend Department briefings, 

Department-sponsored conferences, and 

other meetings, as requested by OSEP; 

and 

(iv) At least monthly, communicate 

and collaborate with other Departmentfunded centers to achieve project 

objectives; 

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item 

for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of 

the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s intended outcomes, 

as those needs are identified in 

consultation with, and approved by, the 

OSEP project officer. With approval 

from the OSEP project officer, the 

project must reallocate any remaining 

funds from this annual set-aside no later 

than the end of the third quarter of each 

budget period; 

(4) Include a plan for maintaining a 

high-quality website, with an easy-tonavigate design, that meets government 

or industry-recognized standards for 

accessibility; 

(5) Include a plan for ensuring that 

annual project progress toward meeting 

project goals is posted on the project 

website; 

(6) Include, in Appendix A, a letter of 

agreement from each partnering 

organization or consultant. The letter of 

agreement should clearly specify the 

role of the partnering organization or 

consultant and the time needed to fulfill 

the commitment to the project; and 

(7) Include, in Appendix A, an 

assurance to assist OSEP and OESE with 

the transfer of pertinent resources and 

products and to maintain the continuity 

of services to target audiences during 

the transition to this new award period 

and at the end of this award period, as 

appropriate. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36663 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Definitions: 

The Department establishes the 

following definitions for the purposes of 

the National Comprehensive Center on 

Improving Literacy for Students with 

Disabilities Program. We may apply one 

or more of these definitions in any year 

in which this program is in effect. We 

include the source of each definition in 

parentheses. 

Capacity-building services means 

assistance that strengthens an 

individual’s or organization’s ability to 

engage in continuous improvement and 

achieve expected outcomes. (Final 

Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, 

and Performance Measures; 

Comprehensive Centers Program (84 FR 

13122), April 4, 2019.) 

Fidelity means the delivery of 

instruction in the way in which it was 

designed to be delivered. (Final 

Priorities and Definitions; State 

Personnel Development Grants (77 FR 

45944), August 2, 2012.) 

Intensive, sustained TA means TA 

services often provided on-site and 

requiring a stable, ongoing relationship 

between the TA center staff and the TA 

recipient. This category of TA should 

result in changes to policy, program, 

practice, or operations that support 

increased recipient capacity or 

improved outcomes at one or more 

systems levels. 

Regional educational agency, for the 

purposes of this program, means ‘‘Tribal 

Educational Agency’’ as defined in 

ESEA section 6132(b)(3), as well as 

other educational agencies that serve 

regional areas. (Final Priorities, 

Requirements, Definitions, and 

Performance Measures; Comprehensive 

Centers Program (84 FR 13122), April 4, 

2019). 

TA services are defined as negotiated 

series of activities designed to reach a 

valued outcome. 

Targeted, specialized TA means TA 

services based on needs common to 

multiple recipients and not extensively 

individualized. A relationship is 

established between the TA recipient 

and one or more TA center staff. This 

category of TA includes one-time, laborintensive events, such as facilitating 

strategic planning or hosting regional or 

national conferences. It can also include 

episodic, less labor-intensive events that 

extend over a period of time, such as 

facilitating a series of conference calls 

on single or multiple topics that are 

designed around the needs of the 

recipients. Facilitating communities of 

practice can also be considered targeted, 

specialized TA. 

Third-party evaluator is an 

independent and impartial program 

evaluator who is contracted by the 

grantee to conduct an objective 

evaluation of the project. This evaluator 

must not have participated in the 

development or implementation of any 

project activities, except for the 

evaluation activities, nor have any 

financial interest in the outcome of the 

evaluation. 

Universal, general TA means TA and 

information provided to independent 

users through their own initiative, 

resulting in minimal interaction with 

TA center staff and including one-time, 

invited or offered conference 

presentations by TA center staff. This 

category of TA also includes 

information or products, such as 

newsletters, guidebooks, or research 

syntheses, downloaded from the TA 

center’s website by independent users. 

Brief communications by TA center staff 

with recipients, either by telephone or 

email, are also considered universal, 

general TA. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority and these requirements 

and definitions, 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) determines whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.), the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 

as not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 the final priority, 

requirement, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
36664 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 these Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that the 

costs associated with this final priority, 

requirement, and definitions will be 

minimal, while the benefits are 

significant. The Department believes 

that this regulatory action does not 

impose significant costs on eligible 

entities. Participation in this program is 

voluntary, and the costs imposed on 

applicants by this regulatory action will 

be limited to paperwork burden related 

to preparing an application. The 

benefits of implementing the program— 

improving literacy skills for students at 

risk of not attaining full literacy skills 

due to a disability—will outweigh the 

costs incurred by applicants, and the 

costs of carrying out activities 

associated with the application will be 

paid for with program funds. For these 

reasons, we have determined that the 

costs of implementation will not be 

excessively burdensome for eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department believes that the 

priority, and requirement, and 

definitions are needed to administer the 

program effectively. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final priority, requirement, and 

definitions contain information 

collection requirements that are 

approved by OMB under control 

number 1894–0006; the final priority, 

requirement, and definitions do not 

affect the currently approved data 

collection. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this final regulatory action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) Size Standards define 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 final 

regulatory action will affect are SEAs; 

LEAs, including charter schools that 

operate as LEAs under State law; 

institutions of higher education (IHEs); 

other public agencies; private nonprofit 

organizations; freely associated States 

and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or 

Tribal organizations; and for-profit 

organizations. We believe that the costs 

imposed on an applicant by the final 

priority, requirement, and definitions 

will be limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application and 

that the benefits of this final priority, 

requirement, and definitions will 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. 

Participation in the National 

Comprehensive Center on Improving 

Literacy for Students with Disabilities 

program is voluntary. For this reason, 

the final priority, requirement, and 

definitions will impose no burden on 

small entities unless they applied for 

funding under the program. We expect 

that in determining whether to apply for 

National Comprehensive Center on 

Improving Literacy for Students with 

Disabilities program funds, an eligible 

entity will evaluate the requirements of 

preparing an application and any 

associated costs and weigh them against 

the benefits likely to be achieved by 

receiving a National Comprehensive 

Center on Improving Literacy for 

Students with Disabilities program 

grant. An eligible entity will most likely 

apply only if it determines that the 

likely benefits exceed the costs of 

preparing an application. 

We believe that the final priority, 

requirement, and definition will not 

impose any additional burden on a 

small entity applying for a grant than 

the entity would face in the absence of 

the final action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the final 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application will likely be the 

same. 

This final regulatory action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a small entity once it receives a grant 

because it would be able to meet the 

costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. 

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 and a copy of the 

application package 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. 

David Cantrell, 

Deputy Director, Office of Special Education 

Programs. Delegated the authority to perform 

the functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services. 

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. 2021–14865 Filed 7–9–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES