42718 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting approximately 1 hour that 

will prohibit entry within a 840-feet 

radius in Presque Isle bay in Erie, PA. 

for a fireworks display. It is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L60(a) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A 

Record of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0574 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0574 Safety Zone; Flagship 

League Mariners Ball Fireworks; Presque 

Isle Bay; Erie, PA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the Presque 

Isle Bay, from surface to bottom, 

encompassed by a 840-feet radius 

around 42°07′16.70′′ N, 080°07′59.34′′ 

W. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Buffalo (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in section 

§ 165.23, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

COTP Buffalo or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP Buffalo or her 

designated representative to obtain 

permission to do so. The COTP Buffalo 

or her designated representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

COTP Buffalo, or her designated 

representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. The regulated 

area described in paragraph (a) is 

effective from 8:50 p.m. through 10 p.m. 

on August 20, 2021. 

Dated: July 30, 2021. 

L.M. Littlejohn, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16707 Filed 8–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OSERS–0018] 

Final Priority—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: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces a priority for 

the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

and Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program, Assistance Listing 

Number 84.326G. The Department may 

use the priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We 

will use the priority to award a 

cooperative agreement for a National 

Assessment Center (Center) to focus 

attention on an identified need to 

address national, State, and local 

assessment issues related to students 

with disabilities, including students 

with disabilities who are also English 

learners (ELs). 

DATES: Effective September 7, 2021. 

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:

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 

technical assistance (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. 

In addition, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, gives the 

Secretary authority to use funds 

reserved under section 611(c) of the 

IDEA to administer and carry out other 

services and activities to improve data 

collection, coordination, quality, and 

use under Parts B and C of the IDEA. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411, 

1416, 1463, and 1481; and the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 

Div. H, Title III of Public Law 116–260, 

134 Stat. 1182. 

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be 

operated in a manner consistent with the 

nondiscrimination requirements contained in 

Federal civil rights laws. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 42719 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on March 25, 2021 (86 

FR 15830). That document contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities. 

Under section 681 of the IDEA, the 

Secretary may give priority to the 

activities listed in section 681(d) 

without regard to the rulemaking 

procedures in section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

The activities required to be conducted 

under Proposed Priority 1 are activities 

listed in section 681(d), whereas the 

activities required to be conducted 

under Proposed Priority 2 include 

activities that are outside the exemption 

from rulemaking under IDEA section 

681(d). As a result, pursuant to the 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements of section 553 of the APA, 

in the NPP, the Department specifically 

invited comments regarding Proposed 

Priority 2, including: (1) The program 

requirements under Proposed Priority 2; 

and (2) the application and 

administrative requirements under the 

common elements section of Proposed 

Priority 1 and Proposed Priority 2, but 

only as the requirements apply to 

Proposed Priority 2. We appreciate 

commenters’ input on Proposed Priority 

1. For the purposes of this notice of final 

priority (NFP), we address only the 

comments on Proposed Priority 2, 

including the associated application and 

administrative requirements. 

We make substantive changes to 

Proposed Priority 2 by adding a focus on 

increasing the capacity of parents of 

students with disabilities to understand 

the statutory and regulatory bases for, 

and benefits of, including all students 

with disabilities in State and 

districtwide assessments and other 

assessments used for educational 

programming and instructional 

purposes. These substantive changes 

impact how Proposed Priority 2 focuses 

attention on the important role that 

parents play in addressing an identified 

need to address national, State, and 

local assessment issues related to 

students with disabilities, including 

students with disabilities who are also 

English learners (ELs). 

There are also editorial differences 

between Proposed Priority 2 and its 

requirements and the final priority and 

requirements. In this NFP, we refer to 

Proposed Priority 2 as the priority, and 

to the Proposed Priority 2 application 

and administrative requirements 

common to Proposed Priority 1 and 2, 

as the requirements. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, eight parties 

submitted comments on the priority and 

requirements. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes, or 

suggested changes the law does not 

authorize us to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the priority or 

requirements. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the NPP follows. 

Comment: Four commenters 

recommended that the Center include a 

focus on increasing the capacity of 

parents to understand the statutory, 

regulatory, and instructional 

programming bases for including all 

students with disabilities in State and 

districtwide assessments. These 

commenters noted that parents lack 

sufficient information regarding the 

participation of students with 

disabilities in State and districtwide 

assessments. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters regarding the importance of 

increasing the capacity of parents to 

understand the statutory, regulatory, 

and instructional programming bases for 

including all students with disabilities 

in State and districtwide assessments as 

well as other assessments used for 

educational programming and 

instructional purposes. Increasing 

parents’ understanding in this area is 

likely to help ensure their meaningful 

involvement in decisions States make in 

analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, 

and summative assessment data to 

better achieve their State-Identified 

Measurable Result (SIMR), for those 

States that have a SIMR related to 

assessment, while at the same time 

incentivizing States to ensure the data 

reviewed and analyzed by the parents 

are of the highest quality; and thus 

improve data quality and use under 

IDEA Part B, consistent with section 

611(c) of the IDEA and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, which 

authorizes the Secretary to use funds 

reserved under section 611(c) of the 

IDEA to administer and carry out other 

services and activities to improve data 

collection, coordination, quality, and 

use under Parts B and C of the IDEA. 

Therefore, we are revising the priority to 

require applicants to propose how the 

Center will increase the awareness of 

and understanding by parents of 

students with disabilities, regarding 

how students with disabilities are 

included in, and benefit from, 

participation in State and districtwide 

assessments and other assessments used 

for educational programming and 

instructional purposes to improve 

instruction of students with disabilities 

and support the implementation of the 

SIMR. 

Changes: We have revised the 

expected outcomes of the priority by 

requiring applicants propose how the 

Center will increase parents of students 

with disabilities’ awareness of and 

understanding of how students with 

disabilities are included in, and benefit 

from, participation in diagnostic, 

interim and summative assessments. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended revising references to 

‘‘interim’’ assessments to ‘‘formative’’ 

assessments, noting that ‘‘interim’’ 

implies a less prescriptive and formal 

process than ‘‘formative.’’ 

Discussion: We understand the point 

the commenter makes in general 

regarding the common meanings of the 

terms ‘‘interim’’ and ‘‘formative’’; 

however, we disagree with the 

commenter that these distinctions apply 

to large-scale State and districtwide 

academic assessments. Interim 

assessments are more prescriptive and 

formal than formative assessments. 

Interim academic assessments typically 

focus on measuring student 

achievement based on a subset of State 

or school district established grade-level 

academic content standards. As such, 

they are designed to measure individual 

and collective student growth and are 

used to evaluate the effectiveness of 

teaching practices, programs, and 

initiatives; and project whether a 

student, class, or school is on track to 

achieve established proficiency 

benchmarks. Interim assessments can 

also provide information regarding the 

instructional needs of individual 

students, but to a lesser extent than 

formative assessments. In contrast, 

formative assessments typically are 

connected to a discrete instructional 

unit, the results of which are intended 

to help educators guide the learning 

process of individual students, rather 

than measure student performance 

against State or districtwide academic 

content and achievement standards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the structure of the notice was 

confusing, and, in response to Executive 

Order 12866 and the Presidential 

memorandum ‘‘Plain Language in 

Government Writing,’’ recommended 

ways to reformat the proposed priority 

to improve clarity. 

Discussion: The formatting for the 

notice published in the Federal Register 

was consistent with the Department’s 

formatting requirements for publishing 

proposed priorities. However, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
42720 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Logic 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. 

2For 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. 

3 ‘‘Universal, general TA’’ means TA and 

information provided to independent users through 

their own initiative, resulting in minimal 

appreciate the commenter’s feedback 

and will consider the commenter’s 

formatting recommendations for future 

proposed priorities. In addition, we 

have described above our reasons for the 

structure of the NPP, and this NFP. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

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 

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 State Systemic 

Improvement Plans (SSIPs); and (2) 

assist State efforts to provide technical 

assistance (TA) to local educational 

agencies (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 State 

educational agency (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 

SSIPs, 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 these program 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements under the 

priority Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination To Improve Services and 

Results for Children With Disabilities— 

National Assessment Center and the 

following application and 

administrative requirements, 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 1

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 2 practices 

(EBPs). To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on the 

effectiveness of analyzing and using 

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,3 which must 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 42721 

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. 

4 ‘‘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, 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. 

5 ‘‘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. 

6A ‘‘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. 

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,4 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,5 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 this 

priority; 

(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.6 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 

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; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
42722 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

7OSEP 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. 

(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; 7

(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, an 

assurance 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. 

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. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 42723 

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 only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with 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 the final priority 

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 to 

focus attention on an identified need to 

address national, State, and local 

assessment issues related to students 

with disabilities, including students 

with disabilities who are also ELs, 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 is needed to administer the 

program effectively. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final priority contains 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under control 

number 1820–0028; the final priority 

does not affect the currently approved 

data collection. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this final regulatory action will 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; 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 and requirements will be 

limited to paperwork burden related to 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits of this final priority will 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. 

Participation in Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination to Improve Services 

and Results for Children with 

Disabilities and Technical Assistance on 

State Data Collection—National 

Assessment Center program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the final 

priority will impose no burden on small 

entities unless they applied for funding 

under the program. We expect that in 

determining whether to apply for the 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities and 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection—National Assessment Center 

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 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities and 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection—National Assessment Center 

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 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
42724 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 148 / Thursday, August 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Originally, the National Academy of Medicine 

was the Institute of Medicine (IOM). In 2015, the 

IOM was reconstituted as the National Academy of 

Medicine (NAM), a component of the National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

(NASEM). The term NASEM is used in this rule to 

refer to reports published by IOM and NAM. 

2NASEM, Gulf War and Health Series: Volume 3: 

Fuels and Products of Combustion (2005), https:// 

doi.org/10.17226/11180 and Volume 11: 

Generational Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf 

War (2018), https://doi.org/10.17226/25162. 

NASEM, Respiratory Health Effects of Airborne 

Hazards Exposures in the Southwest Asia Theater 

of Military Operations (2020), https://doi.org/ 

10.17226/25837. 

3 Department of Defense Enhanced Particulate 

Matter Surveillance Program (EPMSP) Final Report 

(2008), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ 

ADA605600.pdf. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Katherine Neas, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16853 Filed 8–3–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AR25 

Presumptive Service Connection for 

Respiratory Conditions Due to 

Exposure to Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is issuing this interim final 

rule to amend its adjudication 

regulations to establish presumptive 

service connection for three chronic 

respiratory health conditions, i.e., 

asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis, to 

include rhinosinusitis, in association 

with presumed exposures to fine, 

particulate matter. These presumptions 

would apply to veterans with a 

qualifying period of service, i.e., who 

served on active military, naval, or air 

service in the Southwest Asia theater of 

operations during the Persian Gulf War 

(hereafter Gulf War), as well as in 

Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, or 

Uzbekistan, on or after September 19, 

2001, during the Gulf War. This 

amendment is necessary to provide 

expeditious health care, services, and 

benefits to Gulf War Veterans who were 

potentially exposed to fine, particulate 

matter associated with deployment to 

the Southwest Asia theater of 

operations, as well as Afghanistan, 

Syria, Djibouti, and Uzbekistan. The 

intended effect of this amendment is to 

address the needs and concerns of Gulf 

War Veterans and service members who 

have served and continue to serve in 

these locations as military operations in 

the Southwest Asia theater of operations 

have been ongoing from August 1990 

until the present time. Neither Congress 

nor the President has established an end 

date for the Gulf War. Therefore, to 

provide immediate health care, services, 

and benefits to current and future Gulf 

War Veterans who may be affected by 

particulate matter due to their military 

service, VA intends to provide 

presumptive service connection for the 

chronic disabilities of asthma, rhinitis, 

and sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis, 

as well as a presumption of exposure to 

fine, particulate matter. This will ease 

the evidentiary burden of Gulf War 

Veterans who file claims with VA for 

these three conditions, which are among 

the most commonly claimed respiratory 

conditions. 

DATES:

Effective Date: This interim final rule 

is effective on August 5, 2021. 

Applicability Date: The provisions of 

this interim final rule shall apply to all 

applications for service connection for 

asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis based on 

service in the Southwest Asia theater of 

operations, as well as Afghanistan, 

Syria, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan, during 

the Persian Gulf War that are received 

by VA on or after August 5, 2021, or that 

were pending before VA, the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, or the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 

August 5, 2021. 

Comment Date: Comments must be 

received on or before October 4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

or mailed to, Compensation Service, 

21C, 1800 G Street NW, Suite 644A, 

Washington, DC 20006. Comments 

should indicate that they are submitted 

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AR25— 

Presumptive Service Connection for 

Respiratory Conditions Due to Exposure 

to Particulate Matter’’. Comments 

received will be available at 

regulations.gov for public viewing, 

inspection or copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Che, Director, VA Schedule for Rating 

Disabilities Program Office (210), 

Compensation Service, Veterans 

Benefits Administration (VBA), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–9700. (This is not a 

toll-free telephone number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. National Academies of Science, 

Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 1

and National Research Council (NRC) 

Reports 

More than 3.7 million United States 

service members have participated in 

operations in Southwest Asia. During 

and after the initial Gulf War conflict, 

veterans began reporting a variety of 

health problems, as documented 

through the NASEM Gulf War and 

Health, Volumes 1 through 11. In 

addition, concerns continue to be raised 

by service members, veterans, veteran 

advocates, and Congress about possible 

adverse health consequences related to 

in-theater exposures to particulate 

matter, including smoke from open burn 

pits, and other airborne hazards. Several 

studies by NASEM have examined the 

possible contribution of air pollution to 

adverse health effects among U.S. 

military personnel serving in the Middle 

East or their descendants.2

a. 2010 NRC Report, Review of the 

Department of Defense (DoD) Enhanced 

Particulate Matter Surveillance Program 

In February 2008 the Department of 

Defense issued the Department of 

Defense Enhanced Particulate Matter 

Surveillance Program (EPMSP) Final 

Report.3 The purpose of the study was 

to provide information on the chemical 

and physical properties of dust 

collected at deployment locations. 

Aerosol and bulk soil samples were 

collected during a period of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES