42806 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 

1For the purposes of this priority, the term 

‘‘interim assessments’’ refer to assessments that are 

administered several times during a school year to 

measure progress. Another term that is sometimes 

used to describe these assessments is ‘‘formative 

assessments.’’ 

VII. Other Information 

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 another 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. 

Michelle Asha Cooper, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16832 Filed 8–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination To Improve Services 

and Results for Children With 

Disabilities and Technical Assistance 

on State Data Collection—National 

Assessment Center 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) is issuing a notice inviting 

applications for a new award for fiscal 

year (FY) 2021 for a National 

Assessment Center, Assistance Listing 

Number 84.326G. This notice relates to 

the approved information collection 

under OMB control number 1820–0028. 

DATES:

Applications available: August 5, 

2021. 

Deadline for transmittal of 

applications: September 7, 2021. 

Pre-application webinar information: 

No later than August 10, 2021, the 

Office of Special Education Programs 

(OSEP) will post a pre-recorded 

informational webinar designed to 

provide technical assistance (TA) to 

interested applicants. The webinar may 

be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/ 

apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html. 

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for 

obtaining and submitting an 

application, please refer to our Common 

Instructions for Applicants to 

Department of Education Discretionary 

Grant Programs, published in the 

Federal Register on February 13, 2019 

(84 FR 3768), and available at 

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019- 

02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Egnor, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7334 or (202) 

856–6409. Email: David.Egnor@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: 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Programs: The purpose of 

the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

program is to promote academic 

achievement and to improve results for 

children with disabilities by providing 

TA, supporting model demonstration 

projects, disseminating useful 

information, and implementing 

activities that are supported by 

scientifically based research. The 

purpose of the Technical Assistance on 

State Data Collection program is to 

improve the capacity of States to meet 

the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) data collection 

and reporting requirements. 

Priorities: This notice contains two 

absolute priorities. In accordance with 

34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), Absolute 

Priority 1 is from allowable activities 

specified or otherwise authorized in the 

IDEA (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the 

IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)). 

Absolute Priority 2 is from the notice of 

final priority (NFP) for the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

Program—Targeted and Intensive 

Technical Assistance to States on the 

Analysis and Use of Diagnostic, Interim, 

and Summative Assessment Data to 

Support Implementation of States’ 

Identified Measurable Result(s) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2021 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applications from this competition, 

these priorities are absolute priorities. 

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider 

only applications that meet both of 

these priorities. 

These priorities are: 

Priority 1: Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities— 

National Assessment Center. 

Background: 

Section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA 

requires that all students with 

disabilities are included in all general 

State and districtwide assessments, 

including assessments described under 

section 1111 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), with appropriate 

accommodations and alternate 

assessments where necessary and as 

indicated in their respective 

individualized education programs 

(IEPs). In accordance with Federal law, 

there are several ways for students with 

disabilities to participate appropriately 

in State and districtwide assessments: 

General assessments (with or without 

accommodations), alternate assessments 

based on grade-level academic 

achievement standards, and alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. 

Despite the progress State educational 

agencies (SEAs) and local educational 

agencies (LEAs) have made in including 

students with disabilities in assessments 

and accountability systems, SEAs and 

LEAs continue to face challenges, such 

as (1) integrating data from dissimilar 

tests (e.g., general without 

accommodations, general with 

accommodations, alternate) into a single 

accountability system; (2) developing 

consistent SEA and LEA policies on 

assessment accommodations that 

provide maximum accessibility while 

maintaining test reliability and validity; 

(3) analyzing and using diagnostic, 

interim,1 and summative assessment 

data to improve instruction, learning, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 42807 

and accountability for students with 

disabilities; and (4) addressing test 

security, accessibility, technical 

support, and other challenges associated 

with transitioning from traditional 

paper-and-pencil assessments to 

digitally-based assessments (DBAs), 

including DBAs that can be 

administered via distance education and 

other remote service delivery models of 

instruction. 

Furthermore, one of the most complex 

challenges faced by SEAs and LEAs is 

developing and administering English 

language proficiency (ELP) assessments 

to students with disabilities who are 

English learners (ELs). Properly 

identifying these students as disabled is 

also a significant challenge if their 

disabilities are masked by their limited 

English proficiency, or vice versa. 

Improper identification may lead to 

inappropriate instruction, assessments, 

and accommodations for these students. 

Linguistic and cultural biases may also 

affect the validity of assessments for ELs 

with disabilities. 

Finally, the Department notes that in 

many schools, there may be unnecessary 

testing or unclear purpose applied to the 

task of assessing students, including 

students with disabilities, that 

consumes too much instructional time 

and creates undue stress for educators 

and students. (For more information, see 

the Department’s February 2, 2016, 

letter to Chief State School Officers 

available at www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/ 

account/saa/16- 

0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf.) 

These and other complex challenges 

will continue to arise as States continue 

to implement, revise, or adopt new 

challenging academic content standards 

and develop new, valid, more 

instructionally useful, and inclusive 

assessments aligned to these standards. 

Developing these new assessments has 

been and will continue to be 

challenging and time-consuming, and 

States and LEAs need support in 

identifying and implementing effective 

practices for identifying and including 

children with disabilities in State and 

districtwide assessments. Moreover, 

methods for analyzing and effectively 

using State and districtwide assessment 

data to improve instruction, learning, 

and accountability for students with 

disabilities will continue to need further 

development, refinement, and technical 

support. 

Priority: 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

a cooperative agreement to support the 

establishment and operation of a 

National Assessment Center (Center) to 

address national, State, and local 

assessment issues related to students 

with disabilities. The Center must 

achieve, at a minimum, the following 

expected outcomes to ensure the 

inclusion of students with disabilities in 

State and districtwide assessments and 

accountability systems: 

Knowledge Development Outcomes. 

(a) Increased body of knowledge on 

practices supported by evidence to 

collect, analyze, synthesize, and 

disseminate relevant information 

regarding State and districtwide 

assessments of students with 

disabilities, including on topics such 

as— 

(1) The inclusion of students with 

disabilities in accountability systems; 

(2) Assessment accommodations; 

(3) Alternate assessments; 

(4) Universal design of assessments; 

(5) Technology-based assessments, 

including DBAs; 

(6) Interim assessments; 

(7) Competency-based assessments; 

(8) Performance-based assessments; 

(9) The analysis and reporting of 

assessment data (including methods for 

addressing assessment data 

interoperability challenges); 

(10) Application of growth models in 

assessment programs; 

(11) Uses of diagnostic, interim, and 

summative assessment data to inform 

instructional programs for students with 

disabilities; and 

(12) Identifying and assessing ELs 

with disabilities, including ensuring 

that all ELs with disabilities receive 

appropriate accommodations, as 

needed, on ELP assessments, and that 

the results of ELP assessments for 

students with disabilities are validly 

used in making accountability 

determinations under the ESEA. 

(b) Increased capacity of SEA and 

LEA personnel to assess SEA and LEA 

needs, and track SEA and LEA activities 

and trends, related to including students 

with disabilities in State and 

districtwide assessments, including, as 

appropriate, improving the knowledge 

and skills of SEA and LEA personnel 

related to any of the topics listed in 

paragraph (a) of the Knowledge 

Development Outcomes section of the 

priority. 

(c) Increased capacity of parents of 

students with disabilities to understand 

the statutory and regulatory bases for 

including all students with disabilities 

in State and districtwide assessments, 

including general assessments with and 

without accommodations, alternate 

assessments based on grade-level 

academic achievement standards, and 

alternate assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Outcomes. 

(a) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA 

personnel to collect and analyze 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data on the performance of 

students with disabilities, including ELs 

with disabilities. 

(b) Increased capacity of SEA and 

LEA personnel to use diagnostic, 

interim, and summative assessment data 

to develop, evaluate, and improve 

educational policies and increase 

accountability for students with 

disabilities, including ELs with 

disabilities. 

(c) Increased capacity of LEA 

personnel to use diagnostic, interim, 

and summative assessment results in 

instructional decision-making to 

improve teaching and learning for 

students with disabilities, including ELs 

with disabilities. 

(d) Increased capacity of parents of 

students with disabilities to understand 

how students with disabilities are 

included in, and benefit from, 

participation in State and districtwide 

assessments, including general 

assessments with and without 

accommodations, alternate assessments 

based on grade-level academic 

achievement standards, alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities, and other 

assessments listed in paragraphs (a)(5)– 

(8) of the Knowledge Development 

Outcomes section of the priority. 

(e) Increased awareness of national 

policymakers regarding how students 

with disabilities are included in and 

benefit from current and emerging 

approaches to State and districtwide 

assessment, including topics listed in 

paragraph (a) of the Knowledge 

Development Outcomes section of this 

priority. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements under 

Priority 2. 

Priority 2: Targeted and Intensive 

Technical Assistance to States on the 

Analysis and Use of Diagnostic, Interim, 

and Summative Assessment Data to 

Support Implementation of States’ 

Identified Measurable Results. 

Background: 

The purpose of this priority is to (1) 

assist those States that have a StateIdentified Measurable Result (SIMR) 

related to assessment in analyzing and 

using diagnostic, interim, and 

summative assessment data to better 

achieve the SIMR as described in their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
42808 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 

2Paragraph (b)(5)(ii) applies only to Priority 1. 

Paragraph (b)(5)(iv) applies only to Priority 2. 

3Logic model (also referred to as a theory of 

action) means a framework that identifies key 

project components of the proposed project (i.e., the 

active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be 

critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and 

describes the theoretical and operational 

relationships among the key project components 

and relevant outcomes. 

4For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘evidencebased’’ means, at a minimum, evidence that 

demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1), where a key project component included in 

the project’s logic model is informed by research or 

evaluation findings that suggest the project 

component is likely to improve relevant outcomes. 

IDEA Part B State-Systemic 

Improvement Plans (SSIPs); and (2) 

assist State efforts to provide TA to 

LEAs in the analyzing and using State 

and districtwide assessment data for 

those States that have a SIMR related to 

assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, 

as appropriate. 

As detailed in the background section 

for Priority 1, research indicates that 

SEAs and LEAs continue to face 

challenges in analyzing and using 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data to improve instruction, 

learning, and accountability for students 

with disabilities. SEAs also need 

assistance analyzing State assessment 

data submitted as part of the SSIP and 

the SIMR in accordance with section 

616 of IDEA and the Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) guidance. 

Beginning in the IDEA Part B Federal 

fiscal year (FFY) 2013 State Performance 

Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/ 

APR), States were required to provide, 

as part of Phase I of the SSIP, a 

statement of the result(s) the State 

intends to achieve through 

implementation of the SSIP, which is 

referred to as the SIMR for Children 

with Disabilities. States were required to 

establish ‘‘measurable and rigorous’’ 

targets for their SIMRs for each 

successive year of the SPP (FFYs 2014 

through 2019) and will be required to do 

so for each year of the next SPP (FFYs 

2020 through 2025) as part of their SPP/ 

APR submissions. At least 36 States 

have focused their SIMRs on improving 

academic achievement as measured by 

assessment results for children with 

disabilities. These States will need 

assistance in analyzing and using State 

and districtwide assessment data to 

promote academic achievement and to 

improve results for children with 

disabilities. 

Priority: 

The purpose of this priority is to (1) 

assist those States that have a SIMR 

related to assessment in analyzing and 

using diagnostic, interim, and 

summative assessment data to better 

achieve the SIMR as described in their 

IDEA Part B SSIPs; and (2) assist State 

efforts to provide TA to LEAs in 

analyzing and using State and 

districtwide assessment data, for those 

States that have a SIMR related to 

assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, 

as appropriate. 

The Center must achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: 

(a) Increased capacity of SEA 

personnel in States that have a SIMR 

related to assessment results to analyze 

and use diagnostic, interim, and 

summative assessment data to better 

achieve the SIMR as described in the 

IDEA Part B SSIP, including using 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data to evaluate and 

improve educational policy, inform 

instructional programs, and improve 

instruction for students with 

disabilities; 

(b) Increased capacity of SEA 

personnel to provide TA to LEAs to 

analyze and use diagnostic, interim, and 

summative assessment data to improve 

instruction of students with disabilities 

and support the implementation of the 

SIMR; and 

(c) Increased capacity of parents of 

students with disabilities to understand 

how students with disabilities are 

included in, and benefit from, 

participation in diagnostic, interim and 

summative assessments to improve 

instruction of students with disabilities 

and support implementation of the 

SIMR. 

In addition to the programmatic 

requirements contained in both 

priorities, to be considered for funding 

applicants must meet the following 

application and administrative 

requirements,2 which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed 

project will— 

(1) Address the needs of SEAs and 

LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic, 

interim, and summative assessment data 

in instructional decision-making to 

improve teaching and learning for 

students with disabilities. To meet this 

requirement the applicant must— 

(i) Present applicable national, State, 

and local data demonstrating the needs 

of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data in instructional 

decision-making to improve teaching 

and learning for students with 

disabilities; 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

educational issues and policy initiatives 

related to analyzing and using 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data in instructional 

decision-making to improve teaching 

and learning for students with 

disabilities; and 

(iii) Describe the current level of 

implementation related to analyzing and 

using diagnostic, interim, and 

summative assessment data in 

instructional decision-making to 

improve teaching and learning for 

students with disabilities; and 

(2) Improve the analysis and use of 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data to improve teaching 

and learning for students with 

disabilities. 

(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, 

gender, 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 (e.g., by creating materials in 

formats and languages accessible to the 

stakeholders served by the intended 

recipients); 

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model 3

by which the proposed project will 

achieve its intended outcomes that 

depicts, at a minimum, the goals, 

activities, outputs, and intended 

outcomes of the proposed project; 

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and 

provide a copy in Appendix A) to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, 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 and www.osepideasthatwork.org/ 

resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tadproject-logic-model-and-conceptualframework. 

(4) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based 4 practices 

(EBPs). To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on the 

effectiveness of analyzing and using 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 42809 

5 ‘‘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 onetime, 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. 

6 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA service 

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, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 

strategic planning or hosting regional or national 

conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive 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. 

7 ‘‘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. ‘‘TA services’’ are defined as 

negotiated series of activities designed to reach a 

valued outcome. 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. 

8A ‘‘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. 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data in instructional 

decision-making to improve teaching 

and learning for students with 

disabilities; and 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current EBPs in the 

development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(5) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base on 

analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, 

and summative assessment data in 

instructional decision-making to 

improve teaching and learning for 

students with disabilities; 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA,5 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,6 which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the 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,7 which must 

identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of SEA and LEA personnel 

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 and 

LEA levels; 

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting 

SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction with 

SEAs) to build or enhance training 

systems that include professional 

development based on adult learning 

principles and coaching; 

(D) Its proposed plan for working with 

appropriate levels of the education 

system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA 

providers, LEAs, schools, and families) 

to ensure that there is communication 

between each level and that there are 

systems in place to support the 

collection, analysis, and use of 

diagnostic, interim, and summative 

assessment data in instructional 

decision-making to improve teaching 

and learning for students with 

disabilities; and 

(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating 

and coordinating with Departmentfunded TA investments, where 

appropriate, in order to align 

complementary work and jointly 

develop and implement products and 

services to meet the purposes of the 

priorities; 

(6) 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 

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 

developed in consultation with and 

implemented by a third-party 

evaluator.8 The evaluation plan must— 

(1) Articulate formative and 

summative evaluation questions, 

including important process and 

outcome evaluation questions. These 

questions should be related to the 

project’s proposed logic model required 

in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these 

requirements; 

(2) Describe how progress in and 

fidelity of implementation, as well as 

project 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 at the end 

of Year 2 for the review process 

described under the heading, Fourth 

and Fifth Years of the Project; and 

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each 

budget year to cover the costs of 

developing or refining the evaluation 

plan in consultation with a ‘‘thirdparty’’ evaluator, as well as 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 

encourage applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
42810 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 

9OSEP has found that a minimum of a threequarter time equivalency (0.75 FTE) in the role of 

project director (or divided between a half-time 

equivalency in the role of the project director and 

a quarter-time equivalency in the role of a coproject director) is necessary to ensure effective 

implementation of the management plan and that 

products and services provided are of high quality, 

relevant, and useful to recipients. 

and experience to carry out the 

proposed activities and achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(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; 

(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, educators, 

TA providers, researchers, and policy 

makers, among others, in its 

development and operation. 

(f) Address the following 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; 9

(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 

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 virtually, during each year of the 

project period; 

(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or 

virtually, to attend Department 

briefings, Department-sponsored 

conferences, and other meetings, as 

requested by OSEP; and 

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review 

meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, 

during the second year of the project 

period; 

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

for an annual set-aside of five 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) Maintain a high-quality website, 

with an easy-to-navigate design, that 

meets government or industryrecognized standards for accessibility; 

(5) Ensure that annual project 

progress toward meeting project goals is 

posted on the project website; and 

(6) Include, in Appendix A, two 

assurances. The first assurance is to 

assist OSEP with the transfer of 

pertinent resources and products and to 

maintain the continuity of services to 

States during the transition to a new 

award at the end of this award period, 

as appropriate. The second assurance is 

to ensure the applicant will track and 

report IDEA section 663 funds 

separately from IDEA section 611(i) 

funds. Please refer to Part II Award 

Information of this notice for more 

information about preparing the budget. 

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project: 

In deciding whether to continue 

funding the project for the fourth and 

fifth years, the Secretary will consider 

the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), 

including— 

(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 

review team consisting of experts who 

have experience and knowledge in 

providing technical assistance to SEA 

and LEA personnel in including 

students with disabilities in assessments 

and accountability systems. This review 

will be conducted during a one-day 

intensive meeting that will be held 

during the last half of the second year 

of the project period; 

(b) The timeliness with which, and 

how well, the requirements of the 

negotiated cooperative agreement have 

been or are being met by the project; and 

(c) The quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the project’s products and 

services and the extent to which the 

project’s products and services are 

aligned with the project’s objectives and 

likely to result in the project achieving 

its intended outcomes. 

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary 

may reduce continuation awards or 

discontinue awards in any year of the 

project period for excessive carryover 

balances or a failure to make substantial 

progress. The Department intends to 

closely monitor unobligated balances 

and substantial progress under this 

program and may reduce or discontinue 

funding accordingly. 

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department 

generally offers interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

priorities and requirements. Section 

681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the 

public comment requirements of the 

APA inapplicable to Absolute Priority 1 

in this notice. 

Program Authority: For Absolute 

Priority 1, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481; for 

Absolute Priority 2, 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) 

and 1416(i). 

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be 

operated in a manner consistent with the 

nondiscrimination requirements contained in 

Federal civil rights laws. 

Applicable Regulations: (a) The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR 

parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, 

and 99. (b) The Office of Management 

and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on 

Governmentwide Debarment and 

Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR 

part 180, as adopted and amended as 

regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 

part 3485. (c) The Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) in 

2 CFR part 200, as adopted and 

amended as regulations of the 

Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The 

NFP. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 

apply to all applicants except federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 

apply to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) only. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

agreement. 

Estimated Available Funds: 

$1,750,000. 

Estimated Available Funds under 

IDEA section 663: $1,000,000. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 42811 

Estimated Available Funds under 

IDEA section 616(i): $750,000. 

Note: Applicants must submit a separate 

ED 524 form with a budget and budget 

narrative for Absolute Priority 1 only and a 

separate ED 524 form with a budget and 

budget narrative for Absolute Priority 2 only. 

The Secretary will reject any application that 

does not address all the elements of Absolute 

Priority 1 separately from the elements of 

Absolute Priority 2 and that does not include 

a separate budget and budget narrative for 

Absolute Priority 1, separate and distinct 

from a budget and budget narrative for 

Absolute Priority 2. 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of applications, 

we may make additional awards in FY 

2022 from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition. 

Maximum Award: We will reject and 

not review any application that 

proposes a budget for Absolute Priority 

1 that exceeds $1,000,000 or Absolute 

Priority 2 that exceeds $750,000 for a 

single budget period of 12 months, and 

we will reject and not review any 

application that proposes a total budget 

that exceeds $1,750,000 for a single 

budget period of 12 months. The 

Department may change the maximum 

amount through a notice published in 

the Federal Register. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 1. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: Up to 60 months. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, 

including public charter schools that are 

considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; 

other public agencies; private nonprofit 

organizations; outlying areas; Indian 

Tribes or Tribal organizations; and forprofit organizations. 

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This 

competition does not require cost 

sharing or matching. 

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This 

program uses an unrestricted indirect 

cost rate. For more information 

regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a 

negotiated indirect cost rate, please see 

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/ 

intro.html. 

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: 

This program does not include any 

program-specific limitation on 

administrative expenses. All 

administrative expenses must be 

reasonable and necessary and conform 

to the Cost Principles described in 2 

CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 

Guidance. 

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this 

competition may not award subgrants to 

entities to directly carry out project 

activities described in its application. 

Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may 

contract for supplies, equipment, and 

other services in accordance with 2 CFR 

part 200. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. Application Submission 

Instructions: Applicants are required to 

follow the Common Instructions for 

Applicants to Department of Education 

Discretionary Grant Programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and 

available at www.govinfo.gov/content/ 

pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, 

which contain requirements and 

information on how to submit an 

application. 

2. Intergovernmental Review: This 

competition is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. Information about 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs under Executive Order 12372 

is in the application package for this 

competition. However, under 34 CFR 

79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental 

review in order to make an award by the 

end of FY 2021. 

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

4. Recommended Page Limit: The 

application narrative is where you, the 

applicant, address the selection criteria 

that reviewers use to evaluate your 

application. We recommend that you (1) 

limit the application narrative to no 

more than 70 pages and (2) use the 

following standards: 

• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5′′ x 11′′, on one side 

only, with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, 

and both sides. 

• Double-space (no more than three 

lines per vertical inch) all text in the 

application narrative, including titles, 

headings, footnotes, quotations, 

reference citations, and captions, as well 

as all text in charts, tables, figures, 

graphs, and screen shots. 

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger. 

• Use one of the following fonts: 

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 

New, or Arial. 

The recommended page limit does not 

apply to the cover sheet; the budget 

section, including the narrative budget 

justification; the assurances and 

certifications; or the abstract (follow the 

guidance provided in the application 

package for completing the abstract), the 

table of contents, the list of priority 

requirements, the resumes, the reference 

list, the letters of support, or the 

appendices. However, the 

recommended page limit does apply to 

all of the application narrative, 

including all text in charts, tables, 

figures, graphs, and screen shots. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria: The selection 

criteria for this competition are from 34 

CFR 75.210 and are as follows: 

(a) Significance (10 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

significance of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the significance of 

the proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which specific gaps 

or weaknesses in services, 

infrastructure, or opportunities have 

been identified and will be addressed by 

the proposed project, including the 

nature and magnitude of those gaps or 

weaknesses; and 

(ii) The importance or magnitude of 

the results or outcomes likely to be 

attained by the proposed project. 

(b) Quality of project services (35 

points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the services to be provided by 

the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

services to be provided by the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

quality and sufficiency of strategies for 

ensuring equal access and treatment for 

eligible project participants who are 

members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. 

(3) In addition, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are clearly 

specified and measurable; 

(ii) The extent to which there is a 

conceptual framework underlying the 

proposed research or demonstration 

activities and the quality of that 

framework; 

(iii) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

reflect up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice; 

(iv) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

are appropriate to the needs of the 

intended recipients or beneficiaries of 

those services; and 

(v) The extent to which the TA 

services to be provided by the proposed 

project involve the use of efficient 

strategies, including the use of 

technology, as appropriate, and the 

leveraging of non-project resources. 

(c) Quality of the project evaluation 

(20 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the evaluation to be 

conducted of the proposed project. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
42812 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project; 

(ii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation provide for examining the 

effectiveness of project implementation 

strategies; 

(iii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes; and 

(iv) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation include the use of 

objective performance measures that are 

clearly related to the intended outcomes 

of the project and will produce 

quantitative and qualitative data to the 

extent possible. 

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality 

of project personnel (15 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources for the proposed 

project and the quality of the personnel 

who will carry out the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of 

project personnel, the Secretary 

considers the extent to which the 

applicant encourages applications for 

employment from persons who are 

members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. 

(3) In addition, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director or principal 

investigator; 

(ii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of key 

project personnel; 

(iii) The adequacy of support, 

including facilities, equipment, 

supplies, and other resources, from the 

applicant organization or the lead 

applicant organization; 

(iv) The extent to which the costs are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and potential significance of the 

proposed project. 

(e) Quality of the management plan 

(20 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the management plan for the 

proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

management plan for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks; 

(ii) The extent to which the time 

commitments of the project director and 

principal investigator and other key 

project personnel are appropriate and 

adequate to meet the objectives of the 

proposed project; 

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for 

ensuring high-quality products and 

services from the proposed project; and 

(iv) How the applicant will ensure 

that a diversity of perspectives are 

brought to bear in the operation of the 

proposed project, including those of 

parents, teachers, the business 

community, a variety of disciplinary 

and professional fields, recipients or 

beneficiaries of services, or others, as 

appropriate. 

2. Review and Selection Process: We 

remind potential applicants that in 

reviewing applications in any 

discretionary grant competition, the 

Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 

75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the 

applicant in carrying out a previous 

award, such as the applicant’s use of 

funds, achievement of project 

objectives, and compliance with grant 

conditions. The Secretary may also 

consider whether the applicant failed to 

submit a timely performance report or 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary requires 

various assurances, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

3. Additional Review and Selection 

Process Factors: In the past, the 

Department has had difficulty finding 

peer reviewers for certain competitions 

because so many individuals who are 

eligible to serve as peer reviewers have 

conflicts of interest. Therefore, the 

Department has determined that for 

some discretionary grant competitions, 

applications may be separated into two 

or more groups and ranked and selected 

for funding within specific groups. This 

procedure will make it easier for the 

Department to find peer reviewers by 

ensuring that greater numbers of 

individuals who are eligible to serve as 

reviewers for any particular group of 

applicants will not have conflicts of 

interest. It also will increase the quality, 

independence, and fairness of the 

review process, while permitting panel 

members to review applications under 

discretionary grant competitions for 

which they also have submitted 

applications. 

4. Risk Assessment and Specific 

Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 

200.206, before awarding grants under 

this competition the Department 

conducts a review of the risks posed by 

applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the 

Secretary may impose specific 

conditions, and under 2 CFR 3474.10, in 

appropriate circumstances, high-risk 

conditions on a grant if the applicant or 

grantee is not financially stable; has a 

history of unsatisfactory performance; 

has a financial or other management 

system that does not meet the standards 

in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 

fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; 

or is otherwise not responsible. 

5. Integrity and Performance System: 

If you are selected under this 

competition to receive an award that 

over the course of the project period 

may exceed the simplified acquisition 

threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 

CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a 

judgment about your integrity, business 

ethics, and record of performance under 

Federal awards—that is, the risk posed 

by you as an applicant—before we make 

an award. In doing so, we must consider 

any information about you that is in the 

integrity and performance system 

(currently referred to as the Federal 

Awardee Performance and Integrity 

Information System (FAPIIS)), 

accessible through the System for 

Award Management. You may review 

and comment on any information about 

yourself that a Federal agency 

previously entered and that is currently 

in FAPIIS. 

Please note that, if the total value of 

your currently active grants, cooperative 

agreements, and procurement contracts 

from the Federal Government exceeds 

$10,000,000, the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, 

require you to report certain integrity 

information to FAPIIS semiannually. 

Please review the requirements in 2 CFR 

part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant 

plus all the other Federal funds you 

receive exceed $10,000,000. 

6. In General: In accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all 

applicable Federal laws, and relevant 

Executive guidance, the Department 

will review and consider applications 

for funding pursuant to this notice 

inviting applications in accordance 

with— 

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to 

be successful in delivering results based 

on the program objectives through an 

objective process of evaluating Federal 

award applications (2 CFR 200.205); 

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain 

telecommunication and video 

surveillance services or equipment in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 42813 

alignment with section 889 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act of 

2019 (Pub. L. 115–232) (2 CFR 200.216); 

(c) Providing a preference, to the 

extent permitted by law, to maximize 

use of goods, products, and materials 

produced in the United States (2 CFR 

200.322); and 

(d) Terminating agreements in whole 

or in part to the greatest extent 

authorized by law if an award no longer 

effectuates the program goals or agency 

priorities (2 CFR 200.340). 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN); or we may send you an email 

containing a link to access an electronic 

version of your GAN. We may notify 

you informally, also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Open Licensing Requirements: 

Unless an exception applies, if you are 

awarded a grant under this competition, 

you will be required to openly license 

to the public grant deliverables created 

in whole, or in part, with Department 

grant funds. When the deliverable 

consists of modifications to pre-existing 

works, the license extends only to those 

modifications that can be separately 

identified and only to the extent that 

open licensing is permitted under the 

terms of any licenses or other legal 

restrictions on the use of pre-existing 

works. Additionally, a grantee that is 

awarded competitive grant funds must 

have a plan to disseminate these public 

grant deliverables. This dissemination 

plan can be developed and submitted 

after your application has been 

reviewed and selected for funding. For 

additional information on the open 

licensing requirements please refer to 2 

CFR 3474.20. 

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multiyear award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/appforms/ 

appforms.html. 

5. Performance Measures: For the 

purposes of the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR 

75.110, we have established a set of 

performance measures, including longterm measures, that are designed to 

yield information on various aspects of 

the effectiveness and quality of the 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities program. 

These measures are: 

• Program Performance Measure 1: 

The percentage of technical assistance 

and dissemination products and 

services deemed to be of high quality by 

an independent review panel of experts 

qualified to review the substantive 

content of the products and services. 

• Program Performance Measure 2: 

The percentage of special education 

technical assistance and dissemination 

products and services deemed by an 

independent review panel of qualified 

experts to be of high relevance to 

educational and early intervention 

policy or practice. 

• Program Performance Measure 3: 

The percentage of all special education 

technical assistance and dissemination 

products and services deemed by an 

independent review panel of qualified 

experts to be useful in improving 

educational or early intervention policy 

or practice. 

• Program Performance Measure 4: 

The cost efficiency of the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination to 

Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities program 

includes the percentage of milestones 

achieved in the current annual 

performance report period and the 

percentage of funds spent during the 

current fiscal year. 

• Long-term Program Performance 

Measure: The percentage of States 

receiving special education technical 

assistance and dissemination services 

regarding scientifically or evidencebased practices for infants, toddlers, 

children, and youth with disabilities 

that successfully promote the 

implementation of those practices in 

school districts and service agencies. 

Note: These measures apply only to 

activities funded under the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination to Improve 

Services and Results for Children with 

Disabilities program (i.e., Absolute Priority 

1), and grantees are required to submit data 

on these measures as directed by OSEP. 

Grantees will be required to report 

information on their project’s 

performance in annual and final 

performance reports to the Department 

(34 CFR 75.590). 

The Department will also closely 

monitor the extent to which the 

products and services provided by the 

Center meet needs identified by 

stakeholders and may require the Center 

to report on such alignment in their 

annual and final performance reports. 

6. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award under 34 CFR 

75.253, the Secretary considers, among 

other things: Whether a grantee has 

made substantial progress in achieving 

the goals and objectives of the project; 

whether the grantee has expended funds 

in a manner that is consistent with its 

approved application and budget; and, 

if the Secretary has established 

performance measurement 

requirements, whether the grantee has 

made substantial progress in achieving 

the performance targets in the grantee’s 

approved application. 

In making a continuation award, the 

Secretary also considers whether the 

grantee is operating in compliance with 

the assurances in its approved 

application, including those applicable 

to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit 

discrimination in programs or activities 

receiving Federal financial assistance 

from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 

104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Other Information 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
42814 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Notices 

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. 

Katherine Neas, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16855 Filed 8–3–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

ACTION: Sunshine Act Notice; Notice of 

Public Roundtable Agenda. 

SUMMARY: 2020 EAVS and 2020 

Elections Lessons Learned Roundtable. 

DATES: Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 1:00 

p.m.–3:00 p.m. Eastern. 

ADDRESSES: Virtual via Zoom. 

The roundtable is open to the public 

and will be livestreamed on the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission 

YouTube Channel: https://

www.youtube.com/channel/UCpN6i0g2r

lF4ITWhwvBwwZw. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897– 

9285, Email: kmuthig@eac.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose: In accordance with the 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

(Sunshine Act), Public Law 94–409, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. 552b), the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

will conduct a virtual roundtable 

discussion on the new Election 

Administration and Voting Survey 

(EAVS) 2020 Comprehensive Report and 

‘‘Lessons Learned from the 2020 General 

Election’’ report commissioned by the 

EAC. 

Agenda: The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) Commissioners will 

lead the discussion with two panels of 

speakers. The first panel will provide an 

overview of the 2020 EAVS and Policy 

Survey and the data outcomes. The 

second panel will include the authors of 

EAC commissioned ‘‘Lessons Learned 

from the 2020 General Election’’ report. 

Previous EAVS reports are available 

on the EAC’s studies and report web 

page: https://www.eac.gov/researchand-data/studies-and-reports. The 2020 

EAVS will be available on that web page 

once it is finalized. The ‘‘Lessons 

Learned from the 2020 General 

Election’’ report will also be available 

on the EAC’s website: https://

www.eac.gov. 

The full agenda will be posted in 

advance on the EAC website: https://

www.eac.gov. 

Background 

Since 2004, the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) has 

conducted the Election Administration 

and Voting Survey (EAVS) following 

each federal general election. The EAVS 

asks all 50 U.S. states, the District of 

Columbia, and five U.S. territories— 

American Samoa, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands—to provide data 

about the ways Americans vote and how 

elections are administered. Since 2008, 

this project has included a separate 

survey collecting information about 

state election laws, policies, and 

practices. 

The EAVS provides the most 

comprehensive source of state and local 

jurisdiction-level data about election 

administration in the United States. 

Topics covered through EAVS data 

collection relate to voter registration and 

list maintenance, voting practices for 

overseas citizens and members of the 

armed forces serving away from home 

and other important issues related to 

voting and election administration. 

The EAC commissioned Charles 

Stewart from MIT and John Fortier from 

the American Enterprise Institute to 

develop the ‘‘Lessons Learned from the 

2020 General Election’’ report. This 

report draws on a wide variety of 

evidence and statistical sources to 

review a variety of topics that inform 

our understanding of how well the 

election was run: Shifting from inperson to mail balloting; managing mail 

and in-person voting; counting votes; 

paying for the election; voting 

technology; voter registration; and voter 

confidence. 

Status 

This roundtable discussion will be 

open to the public. 

Amanda Joiner, 

Associate Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16874 Filed 8–3–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP21–476–000] 

West Texas Gas, Inc.; West Texas Gas 

Utility, LLC; Notice of Applications and 

Establishing Intervention Deadline 

Take notice that on July 20, 2021, 

West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTGI) and West 

Texas Gas Utility, LLC (WTGU–LLC), 

both located at 211 North Colorado, 

Midland, TX 79701, filed an application 

under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of 

the Commission’s regulations requesting 

authorization for: (1) WTGI to abandon 

approximately 152 miles of 12, 10, 6, 

and 4-inch diameter pipeline located in 

Texas and New Mexico; (2) WTGI to 

abandon the blanket certificate it was 

issued pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F 

of the Commission’s regulations; (3) 

WTGU–LLC to acquire, own, and 

operate the existing pipeline facilities 

that are to be abandoned by WTGI; and 

(4) WTGU–LLC a blanket certificate 

pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F of the 

Commission’s regulations. The 

applicants state that the requested 

authorizations are designed to facilitate 

an internal reorganization that will have 

no effect on existing customers, 

landowners, or the environment, and is 

otherwise required by the public 

convenience and necessity, all as more 

fully set forth in the application which 

is on file with the Commission and open 

for public inspection. 

In addition to publishing the full text 

of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

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

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. At this 

time, the Commission has suspended 

access to the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, due to the 

proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES