Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 55509 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing these actions and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. These actions are not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of these 

actions must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 6, 

2021. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of these actions for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. These actions may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: September 29, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart Z—Mississippi 

■ 2. In § 52.1270 amend the table in 

paragraph (e) by adding entries for 

‘‘Regional Haze Progress Report’’ and 

‘‘BART SIP’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Progress Report ..... Mississippi ...................................... 10/4/2018 10/6/2021, [Insert citation of publication].

BART SIP ....................................... Mississippi ...................................... 8/13/2020 10/6/2021, [Insert citation of publication].

§ 52.1279 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.1279 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a). 

[FR Doc. 2021–21562 Filed 10–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 1304 

RIN 0970–AC85 

Flexibility for Head Start Designation 

Renewals in Certain Emergencies 

AGENCY: Office of Head Start (OHS), 

Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule adopts as final the 

provision to the Head Start Program 

Performance Standards (HSPPS) to 

establish parameters by which ACF may 

make designation renewal 

determinations during a federally 

declared major disaster, emergency, or 

public health emergency (PHE) and in 

the absence of all normally required 

data. 

DATES: Effective October 6, 2021, the 

interim final rule published December 

7, 2020, at 85 FR 78792, is adopted as 

final. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colleen Rathgeb, Office of Head Start, at 

HeadStart@eclkc.info or 1–866–763– 

6481. Deaf and hearing impaired 

individuals may call the Federal Dual 

Party Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
55510 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Executive Summary 

III. Background 

IV. Provisions of the Final Rule 

V. Public Comments Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Process Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act of 1999 

Federalism Assessment Executive Order 

13132 

Congressional Review 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Regulatory Planning and Review Executive 

Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

VIII. Tribal Consultation Statement 

I. Statutory Authority 

ACF publishes this final rule under 

the authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (the 

Secretary) by sections 641(a), which 

describes the Secretary’s authority to 

designate a local public or private 

nonprofit agency as a Head Start agency; 

641(c), which lays out the requirements 

for the system for designation renewal; 

and 644(c), which directs the Secretary 

to prescribe rules or regulations for 

Head Start agencies, of the Head Start 

Act, as amended by the Improving Head 

Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 

(Pub. L. 110–134). 

II. Executive Summary 

The Improving Head Start for School 

Readiness Act of 2007 (the 2007 

Reauthorization) of the Head Start Act 

(the Act) required ACF to establish a 

system for determining whether Head 

Start (including Early Head Start) 

grantees are delivering high-quality and 

comprehensive services to the children 

and families they serve. In 2011, ACF 

issued a regulation (76 FR 70009) to 

establish the Designation Renewal 

System (DRS) to meet this requirement. 

Under the DRS, all Head Start grants 

were transitioned from indefinite to 5- 

year grant periods, and any grant that 

meets one or more of seven specified 

conditions during the 5-year project 

period is subject to an open competition 

for continued funding. Any Head Start 

grant that does not meet one of the 

seven DRS conditions becomes eligible 

for a new noncompetitive 5-year grant. 

The Act lays out the types of data that 

must be considered as part of these DRS 

determinations. Three of the seven 

conditions of the DRS were revised 

through a final rule published on 

August 28, 2020 (85 FR 53189). Due to 

the ongoing 2019 Novel Coronavirus 

(COVID–19) pandemic, the ability of 

ACF to collect all data on grants 

required for making determinations 

under the DRS has been severely 

impaired. This issue is described further 

in the following paragraph. 

Furthermore, there may be major 

disasters, emergencies, or PHEs in the 

future that similarly impact ACF’s 

ability to collect all information 

required for making DRS 

determinations. 

Therefore, ACF adopts as final the 

interim rule, published December 7, 

2020, at 85 FR 78792 that added a new 

section to the HSPPS regulation under 

Part 1304 Subpart B, Designation 

Renewal. This section, § 1304.17, 

established parameters by which ACF 

may make a designation renewal 

determination when certain federally 

declared emergencies prevent collection 

of all normally required data. As with 

COVID–19, a major disaster or 

emergency declared by the President 

under section 401 or 501 of the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5170 and 5191) or another PHE declared 

by the Secretary under section 319 of 

the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

247d) may necessitate extended, 

unanticipated program closures or 

temporary shifts to different program 

models or service delivery mechanisms, 

which can make certain monitoring or 

data collection activities unsafe, 

impossible, and/or invalid. In these 

situations, ACF may lack certain 

required data to make designation 

renewal determinations. In cases where 

a grantee’s 5-year grant is ending and all 

required data are not available due to 

the impacts of a federally declared 

disaster or emergency, § 1304.17 allows 

ACF to still determine if an open 

competition is required, or if the grant 

may be renewed noncompetitively 

based on the conditions for which ACF 

has data. Without § 1304.17, ACF would 

not be able to make DRS determinations, 

which could result in the loss of critical 

Head Start services in impacted 

communities. 

In response to the ongoing COVID–19 

PHE, ACF has established through the 

interim final rule a process by which 

ACF will meet the requirements of the 

Act to make designation renewal 

determinations while ensuring the 

safety of Head Start program staff, 

children, and families. As Head Start 

grants approach the end of their 5-year 

grant periods during the ongoing 

COVID–19 pandemic, ACF must make a 

determination under the DRS for these 

grantees to either receive a new 5-year 

grant noncompetitively or to require an 

open competition. Extended program 

closures for in-person Head Start 

services due to the PHE have made, and 

continue to make, it impossible for ACF 

to collect certain data elements relevant 

to the seven DRS conditions and 

required as part of designation renewal 

determinations. In the absence of a DRS 

determination, these communities could 

be left without any Head Start services 

during a particularly challenging time 

for the children and families Head Start 

programs serve. To ensure children and 

families do not lose access to Head Start 

services during a federally declared 

disaster or emergency, now and in the 

future, this final rule is needed to 

establish the process by which DRS 

determinations will be made under 

these circumstances. 

Ensuring the health and safety of 

Head Start staff, children, and families 

is of utmost importance. This final rule 

directly supports that goal, while 

finalizing a process for ACF to meet the 

requirements of the Act to make 

designation renewal determinations 

during the COVID–19 pandemic and 

certain other federally declared disasters 

or emergencies. Due to the ongoing PHE, 

ACF found good cause to waive notice 

and comment rulemaking and instead 

publish an IFR effective upon 

publication. It would have been 

contrary to the public interest to delay 

the flexibility to make DRS 

determinations with the data available 

and to ensure the continuity of critical 

Head Start services in impacted 

communities. This final rule considers 

and responds to public comments 

received on the IFR. 

III. Background 

Since its inception in 1965, Head 

Start has been a leader in helping 

children from low-income families 

reach kindergarten more prepared to 

succeed in school. Through the 2007 

Reauthorization, Congress required HHS 

to ensure these children receive the 

highest quality services possible. In 

support of that requirement, the 2007 

Reauthorization directed the Secretary 

to establish the DRS to (1) identify Head 

Start grantees delivering a high-quality 

and comprehensive Head Start program 

that could receive funding 

noncompetitively for a 5-year period, 

and grantees not delivering a highquality and comprehensive Head Start 

program that will be required to 

compete for continued funding, and (2) 

transition all grants from indefinite 

grants to 5-year grant periods. Congress 

required that decisions about which 

grantees would have to compete be 

based on budget and fiscal management 

data (including annual audits), program 

monitoring reviews, classroom quality— 

and in particular teacher-child 

interactions—as measured by a valid 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 55511 

1https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2020/08/28/2020-17746/head-start-designationrenewal-system. 

2As promulgated in the DRS final rule published 

on August 28, 2020, the competitive threshold for 

the instructional support domain is 2.3 for CLASS 

reviews conducted up through July 31, 2025, and 

then this threshold increases to 2.5 for CLASS 

reviews conducted on or after August 1, 2025. 

3https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-imhs-20-05. 

4https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/ 

community/schools-childcare/guidance-forchildcare.html#open. 

and reliable research-based 

observational instrument, and other 

program information. 

In 2011, HHS published a final rule to 

establish the DRS that included seven 

conditions. Grants that met one or more 

of the seven conditions would have 

their funding subject to an open 

competition for the next 5-year grant 

period. Grantees that did not meet a 

condition became eligible to receive a 

new noncompetitive 5-year grant. 

Following the transition of all grants 

from indefinite to 5-year project periods 

and considering available data and 

research, a 2020 final rule 1 revised the 

DRS and made changes to three of the 

seven DRS conditions. Effective 

November 9, 2020, Head Start grants 

that meet one or more of the following 

seven conditions under the DRS are 

subject to an open competition: (1) Two 

or more deficiencies under section 

641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act; (2) 

failure to establish, use, and analyze 

children’s progress on agencyestablished school readiness goals; (3) 

scores below competitive thresholds in 

any of the three domains of the 

Classroom Assessment Scoring System: 

Pre-K (CLASS); (4) revocation of a 

license to operate a center or program; 

(5) suspension from the program; (6) 

debarment from receiving federal or 

state funds or disqualification from the 

Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(CACFP); and/or (7) either an audit 

finding of being at risk for failing to 

continue as a ‘‘going concern,’’ or two 

or more audit findings of material 

weakness or questioned costs associated 

with its Head Start funds in audit 

reports submitted to the Federal Audit 

Clearinghouse (in accordance with 

section 647 of the Act) for a financial 

period within the current project period. 

The notice and comment process for 

the 2020 final rule predated the COVID– 

19 pandemic. In the 2019 notice of 

proposed rulemaking on the DRS, HHS 

did not propose any flexibilities within 

the DRS to make designation renewal 

determinations in the absence of certain 

data related to the seven conditions due 

to a federally declared major disaster, 

emergency, or PHE. Therefore, these 

flexibilities could not be included in the 

DRS final rule that was published on 

August 28, 2020. 

IV. Provisions of the Final Rule 

All Head Start grants now operate on 

a 5-year project period. As a cohort of 

Head Start grants conclude their 5-year 

grant period, ACF must make a 

determination whether grants may be 

renewed noncompetitively or if they 

will be subject to an open competition. 

The Act requires ACF to consider a 

number of factors in making a 

designation renewal determination. As 

described previously, a federally 

declared major disaster or emergency or 

PHE can make it unsafe or impossible to 

collect some of these required data on 

grants. In particular with the COVID–19 

pandemic, ACF has been, and continues 

to be, unable to collect data from a 

valid, reliable, research-based, 

observational measure of classroom 

quality as required by the Act. The 

reasons for this are further elaborated in 

the following paragraph. It is possible 

that future disasters or emergencies 

could also preclude ACF from collecting 

other required data elements necessary 

for DRS determinations. 

ACF meets the requirement in the Act 

to use a valid, reliable, research-based, 

observational measure of classroom 

quality as part of DRS determinations 

through the administration of the 

CLASS. The CLASS measures the 

quality of teacher-child interactions on 

a 7-point scale in three areas or 

domains: Emotional Support, Classroom 

Organization, and Instructional Support. 

As part of the established ACF 

monitoring process for Head Start 

grantees, trained reviewers administer 

the CLASS on-site in a sample of Head 

Start classrooms for each grant. The 

scores for each classroom within a grant 

are then averaged to create grant-level 

scores. If a grant receives an average 

CLASS score below the following 

competitive thresholds for any of the 

three CLASS domains, the grant is 

designated for competition under the 

DRS: a 5 for Emotional Support, 5 for 

Classroom Organization, and 2.3 for 

Instructional Support.2 Each year, ACF 

schedules a subset of Head Start 

grantees for CLASS reviews, depending 

on where in the 5-year project period 

each grant is. The completion of these 

CLASS reviews within a certain 

window of time is critical to ensure ACF 

can complete the necessary subsequent 

steps for each grant, to determine and 

notify the grantee of their status as 

either competitive or noncompetitive 

under the DRS with sufficient time prior 

to the end of their current 5-year project 

period to run the necessary competitive 

processes. 

In March 2020, ACF made the 

decision to temporarily suspend the 

administration of CLASS reviews in 

Head Start classrooms due to the 

COVID–19 PHE. At that time, ACF was 

concerned about jeopardizing the health 

and safety of Head Start children and 

staff by sending outside observers into 

Head Start classrooms to conduct 

CLASS reviews. Most Head Start 

classrooms across the country closed for 

some time due to increased health and 

safety concerns amid the spread of 

COVID–19. More than 90 percent of 

programs closed in spring 2020. Due to 

the evolving nature of the COVID–19 

pandemic, ACF was uncertain about the 

ability to resume CLASS reviews during 

the 2020–2021 program year. Therefore, 

in an information memorandum 

directed to Head Start and Early Head 

Start grantees published on September 

24, 2020, ACF announced the decision 

to suspend all CLASS reviews for the 

2020–2021 program year.3

There are multiple factors that 

informed this decision. First, as the 

impacts of the COVID–19 pandemic 

vary significantly in different parts of 

the country, Head Start programs must 

make locally determined decisions 

regarding whether they can safely 

operate in-person services for children 

and families. Programs that do not 

operate in-person services for a period 

of time are, instead, providing some 

type of remote or virtual services for 

enrolled children and families. The 

CLASS tool was not originally designed 

to conduct observations of virtual 

interactions between teachers and 

children, and the research on such use 

of the tool is very limited. Therefore, if 

a program is closed for in-person 

services for an extended period due to 

the pandemic, and even if the program 

is providing virtual services, ACF 

cannot conduct CLASS reviews of 

virtual teaching for monitoring and 

oversight purposes with those programs. 

Second, as previously mentioned, for 

Head Start programs that are providing 

in-person services to children and 

families during part or all of the 2020– 

2021 program year, ACF is not able to 

send additional outside individuals into 

classrooms to conduct CLASS 

observations without increasing the risk 

of exposing Head Start children and 

staff to the virus. This is consistent with 

best practice guidance from the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention on 

safely providing child care in group 

settings during the COVID–19 

pandemic.4


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
55512 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Finally, due to the fact that some 

programs are operating virtual services 

for part or all of their enrollment, and 

this has fluctuated throughout the 

program year, there remains a lot of 

uncertainty for ACF around the 

availability of a sufficient sample size 

for CLASS observations for any given 

grantee. 

While ACF strongly believes it is still 

important to promote high-quality 

learning environments for all children 

served in Head Start, the health and 

safety of children and staff during this 

PHE are also paramount considerations 

for ACF. Therefore, ACF has made the 

determination that a valid and reliable 

observational instrument that assesses 

classroom quality as required by the Act 

does not exist during the current PHE, 

so ACF cannot fulfill this requirement 

during this time. This final rule 

provides ACF the flexibility to proceed 

with DRS determinations in the absence 

of CLASS data that is the result of the 

ongoing PHE. This final rule also 

provides this flexibility for a federally 

declared major disaster, emergency, or 

PHE in the future, which could also 

impact the administration of CLASS or 

the collection of other data elements 

necessary for making DRS 

determinations. The flexibility will 

allow ACF to ensure the continuity of 

critical Head Start services for the 

nation’s most vulnerable children and 

families. As stated previously, ensuring 

high-quality classroom learning 

environments for enrolled children is 

still an important priority for ACF. ACF 

offers a wealth of training and technical 

assistance (TTA) resources to promote 

quality improvement in classroom 

learning environments and teacherchild interactions, including materials 

on the Early Childhood Learning 

Knowledge Center website, interactive 

webinars and learning modules, and 

online opportunities for grantees to 

share and learn about best practices 

with other grantees. ACF also funds a 

regional TTA system, which includes 

individualized support from regional 

specialists for grantees on an as-needed 

basis and at the discretion of each ACF 

region. 

In summary, the provision established 

in § 1304.17 allows ACF to make 

designation renewal decisions with the 

data available when the determination 

must be made in order to ensure the 

continuity of Head Start services, even 

if certain federally declared emergencies 

or disasters preclude ACF from 

collecting all of the data required in the 

Head Start Act. This flexibility ensures 

the safety of Head Start staff, children, 

and families and the continuity of Head 

Start services. 

V. Public Comments Analysis 

We received five (5) unique comments 

on the IFR. Commenters included four 

individuals and one for-profit 

organization that developed, published, 

and owns the copyright to the CLASS 

instrument. Given the very small 

number of comments received on the 

IFR and no comments recommending 

changes to the specific provisions, this 

final rule retains the exact regulatory 

language from the IFR. 

Comment: Four commenters 

expressed support for the continuation 

of education services during a PHE or 

disaster such as the COVID–19 

pandemic, and a few specifically 

supported the flexibility provided to the 

Head Start program as described in the 

IFR. 

Response: OHS appreciates these 

comments and agrees with the 

commenters regarding the importance of 

continuing Head Start services during a 

disaster or PHE. We did not make any 

changes to the final rule in response to 

these comments. 

Comment: One commenter was 

supportive of the flexibility provided to 

the Head Start program in the IFR and 

agreed with our assessment that the 

CLASS tool was not designed to assess 

virtual interactions between teachers 

and children. However, the commenter 

suggested CLASS reviews can be 

conducted remotely for classrooms 

operating in-person, but noted that 

research to examine virtual applications 

of CLASS is ongoing to ensure valid and 

reliable scores from such observations. 

The commenter also noted that there is 

no relationship between the number of 

children in a classroom and ratings on 

the CLASS instrument, so scores during 

the COVID–19 pandemic would not be 

expected to be systematically different 

from scores at other times when 

program learning environments are 

more typical in structure and delivery. 

The commenter also pointed out that 

some states are continuing to require 

CLASS reviews as part of state oversight 

and accountability efforts during the 

pandemic. The commenter encouraged 

OHS to resume CLASS observations as 

soon as it is possible to do so safely, 

even if just in a professional 

development capacity, to support 

teachers and children as they return for 

in-person learning. 

Response: OHS appreciates the 

commenter’s thoughtful analysis of the 

application of the CLASS tool during a 

disaster or PHE, including promising 

possibilities as well as limitations of the 

tool. OHS appreciates the commenter’s 

point that the number of children in a 

classroom at any given time does not 

impact the validity or reliability of 

scores from CLASS observations. OHS 

will remove that piece of the rationale 

for suspension of CLASS reviews 

described in the preamble of this final 

rule. However, as described in the IFR, 

a more salient reason for our decision to 

suspend CLASS reviews was because 

individual Head Start classrooms have 

had to transition from in-person to 

virtual services—and vice versa—at 

various points throughout the program 

year, in order to respond to the changing 

nature of the pandemic as well as 

guidance from federal, state, and local 

officials on best practices for delivery of 

education services during this time. 

OHS monitoring requires a certain 

number of classrooms within a program 

be part of the observations. OHS uses a 

documented and rigorous methodology 

to randomly select which classrooms 

within a program are part of these 

observations for monitoring purposes. 

As noted in the IFR, in many cases a 

sufficient sample size of a grantee’s 

classrooms operating in-person services 

at any given time may not have been 

possible to obtain during the 2020–2021 

program year. 

Finally, OHS appreciates the 

comments regarding resumption of 

CLASS reviews and potential 

unintended consequences around 

alignment with state requirements 

related to CLASS. OHS will carefully 

consider these points when determining 

the best time for resuming CLASS 

reviews of Head Start programs. The 

continued health and safety of Head 

Start staff, children, and families 

continues to be of paramount concern to 

OHS. This comment did not recommend 

any changes to the provision, and we 

did not make any changes to the final 

rule in response to this comment. 

VI. Regulatory Process Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(see 5 U.S.C. 605(b) as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act) requires federal agencies 

to determine, to the extent feasible, a 

rule’s impact on small entities, explore 

regulatory options for reducing any 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of such entities, and explain 

their regulatory approach. The term 

‘‘small entities,’’ as defined in the RFA, 

comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. Under 

this definition, some Head Start grantees 

may be small entities. HHS considers a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 55513 

rule to have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if it 

has at least a 3 percent impact on 

revenue on at least 5 percent of small 

entities. However, the Secretary 

certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as 

enacted by the RFA (Pub. L. 96–354), 

that this rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. During a major disaster or 

emergency or PHE—such as COVID– 

19—in which ACF is not able to collect 

all data elements required for DRS 

determinations and must exercise the 

flexibility set forth in § 1304.17 of the 

HSPPS, ACF expects there to be fewer 

grantees in competition for the relevant 

competition cycles. Therefore, ACF does 

not expect there to be a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA; see 2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.) was enacted to avoid imposing 

unfunded federal mandates on state, 

local, and tribal governments, or on the 

private sector. Section 202 of UMRA 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule whose mandates require spending 

in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

In 2021, that threshold is approximately 

$158 million. This rule does not contain 

mandates that will impose spending 

costs on state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or on the 

private sector, in excess of the 

threshold. 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to 

determine whether a policy or 

regulation may negatively affect family 

well-being. If the agency determines a 

policy or regulation negatively affects 

family well-being, then the agency must 

prepare an impact assessment 

addressing seven criteria specified in 

the law. ACF believes it is not necessary 

to prepare a family policymaking 

assessment (see Pub. L. 105–277) 

because the action it takes in this final 

rule will not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. 

Federalism Assessment Executive Order 

13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

federal agencies to consult with state 

and local government officials if they 

develop regulatory policies with 

federalism implications. Federalism is 

rooted in the belief that issues that are 

not national in scope or significance are 

most appropriately addressed by the 

level of government close to the people. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct impact on the states, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

action does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

Congressional Review 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

allows Congress to review major rules 

issued by federal agencies before the 

rules take effect (see 5 U.S.C. 802(a)). 

The CRA defines a ‘‘major rule’’ as one 

that has resulted, or is likely to result, 

in (1) an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more; (2) a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers; individual industries; 

federal, state, or local government 

agencies; or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, or innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets (see 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8). 

Based on our estimates of the impact of 

this rule, the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

designated this rule as ‘not major’ under 

the CRA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13) seeks to minimize 

government-imposed burden from 

information collections on the public. In 

keeping with the notion that 

government information is a valuable 

asset, it also is intended to improve the 

practical utility, quality, and clarity of 

information collected, maintained, and 

disclosed. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act defines 

‘‘information’’ as any statement or 

estimate of fact or opinion, regardless of 

form or format, whether numerical, 

graphic, or narrative form, and whether 

oral or maintained on paper, electronic, 

or other media (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This 

includes requests for information to be 

sent to the government, such as forms, 

written reports and surveys, 

recordkeeping requirements, and thirdparty or public disclosures (5 CFR 

1320.3(c)). This action does not include 

any new information collection 

requirements or changes to existing 

information collection requirements. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects; distributive impacts; and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 is 

supplemental to, and reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review as 

established in, Executive Order 12866, 

emphasizing the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) 

of Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action that is likely to result in a rule 

(1) having an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more in any 

1 year, or adversely and materially 

affecting a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities (also referred to as 

‘‘economically significant’’); (2) creating 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfering with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially altering the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 

raising novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. A 

regulatory impact analysis must be 

prepared for major rules with 

economically significant effects ($100 

million or more in any 1 year), and an 

‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory 

action is subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget. ACF does 

not anticipate that this rulemaking is 

likely to have an impact of $100 million 

or more in any one year, and therefore 

this rule does not meet the definition of 

‘‘economically significant’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 

12866 provides that OIRA will review 

all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this final rule is 

significant and was accordingly 

reviewed by OMB. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
55514 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Need for Regulatory Action 

This regulatory action is necessary to 

provide ACF the flexibility to make 

determinations under the Head Start 

DRS, even in the absence of all required 

data, if this lack of data is due to a major 

disaster or emergency or PHE. The 

ongoing PHE due to COVD–19 has 

prevented ACF from conducting onsite 

observations of grantees with the CLASS 

tool (an observational measure of the 

quality teacher-child interactions in the 

classroom), which is required by 

regulation. Data from these observations 

provide one piece of information for 

determining whether a Head Start grant 

can be renewed noncompetitively or 

must compete with other potential 

applicants for continued funding. 

Several grants (60) whose 5-year project 

periods are ending in fiscal year (FY) 

2022 would typically have their CLASS 

reviews completed by ACF as part of the 

federal monitoring process sometime 

during FY 2020 or FY 2021. 

However, due to the PHE, ACF has 

not conducted CLASS reviews since 

March 2020 and has decided not to 

conduct any future CLASS reviews until 

at least the fall of 2021. So these 60 

grants whose 5-year project periods are 

nearing completion do not yet have 

CLASS data as part of federal 

monitoring. Without this regulatory 

action, CLASS reviews for these 60 

grants would have to be conducted in 

the fall of 2021, and several other 

decisions must be made by ACF after 

the CLASS reviews are completed but 

before funding can be renewed either 

competitive or noncompetitively. 

Therefore, having to conduct CLASS 

reviews for these grants so late in their 

project periods creates a strong risk of 

the project periods expiring before ACF 

can complete the grant renewal process 

for these 60 grants. This puts the Head 

Start services for enrolled children and 

families at great risk in the impacted 

service areas. 

Cost Savings Analysis 

There are approximately 2,200 grants 

in Head Start. Absent this final rule, it 

is estimated that 60 grants (or 3 percent) 

of all Head Start grants will require 

CLASS reviews to be conducted in FY 

2022 for renewal determinations that 

must also be made in FY 2022. CLASS 

reviews would need to be conducted to 

acquire the necessary data to make 

renewal determinations as described in 

the Head Start Act and the HSPPS. 

Typically, CLASS reviews cost about 

$8,500 per grant to the federal 

government. This primarily includes the 

cost of travel, lodging, and wages for 

CLASS reviewers. The total baseline 

cost of the 60 CLASS reviews in FY 

2022 is estimated at $510,000. 

Across all Head Start grants, ACF 

estimates that approximately 13 percent 

of grants meet the CLASS condition of 

the DRS and are, therefore, required to 

compete for continued funding. If ACF 

applies this percentage to the 60 grants 

lacking CLASS data due to the COVID– 

19 pandemic, this results in an estimate 

of approximately 8 of these 60 grants 

that would be required to compete for 

continued funding due to low CLASS 

scores if they did have CLASS data 

available. 

The cost for competition associated 

with completing a competitive 

application is estimated at $3,097 per 

applicant. This assumption includes 60 

hours per competitive application at a 

cost of approximately $51.62 per hour 

in staff time (ACF multiplies an hourly 

wage of approximately $25.81 by two to 

account for fringe benefits). 

Applications would likely be completed 

by a combination of the Head Start 

assistant director and other managers in 

an early childhood program (i.e., child 

development manager or family and 

community partnership manager). The 

average hourly wage for these positions 

is based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Job Code 11–9031. ACF 

multiplies $3,097 per applicant by 16 to 

account for the eight incumbent 

grantees applying for funds as well as 

eight nonincumbent applicants for those 

service areas. This results in a baseline 

estimated cost of $49,552 for these eight 

grantees to complete competitive 

applications in FY 2022 if they did in 

fact have to compete, as well as eight 

additional applicants. The total baseline 

cost for conducting CLASS reviews for 

these 60 grants and for competition 

associated with eight of these 60 grants 

is $559,552. With this final rule, these 

baseline costs would not apply and are 

therefore cost savings in this analysis. 

With this final rule, those eight 

grantees that would have been required 

to compete in FY 2022 would instead 

need to complete an annual grant 

application for a new annual award. 

ACF assumes it takes approximately 33 

hours of staff time to complete a 

noncompetitive application. Using the 

same assumptions as above for hourly 

wage, ACF estimates it costs 

approximately $1,703 per grant to 

complete a noncompetitive application. 

ACF multiplies this by eight grants, 

which results in a total cost of 

approximately $13,624 for these 

grantees to complete a noncompetitive 

continuation application in FY 2022. 

Taking this cost into account, the total 

cost savings associated with this final 

rule is approximately $545,928. This 

includes cost savings to those entities 

that are not existing Head Start grantees 

as there would be no funding 

opportunity to which they would 

submit a competitive application. 

A qualitative opportunity cost for this 

new rule is fewer opportunities for 

entities that are not existing Head Start 

grantees to be able to compete and 

potentially grow as an early childhood 

provider in their community, for the 

eight communities where grants were 

not designated for competition due to 

potentially low CLASS scores. There is 

also the qualitative cost of children 

continuing to be served by grantees who 

may be providing lower-quality 

classroom learning environments that 

would have led to competition. 

However, ACF believes there is an 

added benefit of existing grantees still 

receiving DRS determinations in a 

timely manner and not experiencing 

undue stress around the status of their 

grant, particularly in the midst of 

COVID–19, when continuity of Head 

Start services for children and families 

is critically important. Additionally, 

these grantees would be able to continue 

to access and receive support from OHS 

through OHS’s extensive TTA system, to 

facilitate continued quality 

improvement in classroom quality care 

and service provision for children and 

families. 

ACF does not believe there will be a 

significant economic impact from this 

regulatory action since the flexibility in 

this final rule will only be exercised 

when necessary. A federally declared 

major disaster, emergency, or PHE that 

limits the ability of ACF to collect all 

data necessary to assess programs for 

DRS determinations, such as the 

COVID–19 PHE, are rare and, therefore, 

ACF anticipates this flexibility will 

rarely be exercised. ACF also anticipates 

that this flexibility will be exercised in 

the future during more localized 

disasters that affect a very small subset 

of grantees. 

This RIA analyzes a 1-year time 

horizon covering FY 2022. In the 

coming years, ACF anticipates very few 

grants being impacted by the provision 

in this final rule. However, ACF also 

recognizes it is difficult to predict future 

potential emergencies or disasters 

during which ACF may need to again 

exercise the flexibility laid out in this 

regulatory provision, resulting in 

uncertainty around potential costs and 

cost savings. 

VIII. Tribal Consultation Statement 

ACF conducts an average of five tribal 

consultations each year for those tribes 

operating Head Start and Early Head 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 55515 

Start. The consultations are held in four 

geographic areas across the country: 

Southwest, Northwest, Midwest 

(Northern and Southern), and Eastern. 

The consultations are often held in 

conjunction with other tribal meetings 

or conferences, to ensure the 

opportunity for most of the 150 tribes 

that operate Head Start and Early Head 

Start programs to be able to attend and 

voice their concerns about issues 

regarding service delivery. ACF 

completes a report after each 

consultation and then compiles a final 

report that summarizes the 

consultations and submits the report to 

the Secretary at the end of the year. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1304 

Designation Renewal System, 

Classroom Assessment Scoring System 

(CLASS), COVID–19, Education of 

disadvantaged, Grant programs—social 

programs, Head Start, Monitoring. 

■ Therefore, for the reasons discussed in 

the preamble, ACF adopts as final the 

interim rule that amended 45 CFR part 

1304 on December 7, 2020 at 85 FR 

78792. 

Dated: September 2, 2021. 

JooYeun Chang, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19786 Filed 10–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 18–89; FCC 20–176; FR 

ID 50685] 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through FCC Programs 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, an 

information collection associated with 

the rules for the Connect America Fund 

contained in the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order, FCC 20–176. This 

document is consistent with the Second 

Report and Order, which stated that the 

Commission would publish a document 

in the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of the new information 

collection requirements. 

DATES: Amendatory instruction 3 adding 

§ 1.50004(c), (d)(1), (g), (h)(2), and (j) 

through (n) and amendatory instruction 

5 adding § 1.50007 published at 86 FR 

2904, January 13, 2021, are effective 

October 6, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Koves, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7400 

or TTY (202) 418–0484. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contact Nicole Ongele at 

(202) 418–2991 or via email: 

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission submitted revised 

information collection requirements for 

review and approval by OMB, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, on August 3, 2021, 

which were approved by OMB on 

September 8, 2021. The information 

collection requirements are contained in 

the Commission’s Second Report and 

Order, FCC 20–176 published at 86 FR 

2904, January 13, 2021. The OMB 

Control Number is 3060–1270. If you 

have any comments on the burden 

estimates listed in the following, or how 

the Commission can improve the 

collections and reduce any burdens 

caused thereby, please contact Nicole 

Ongele, Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. Please include 

the OMB Control Number, 3060–1270, 

in your correspondence. The 

Commission will also accept your 

comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the Commission is notifying the public 

that it received OMB approval on 

September 8, 2021, for the information 

collection requirements contained in 47 

CFR amendatory §§ instruction 3 adding 

1.50004(c), (d)(1), (g), (h)(2), (j) through 

(n), and amendatory instruction 5 

adding § 1.50007 published at 86 FR 

2904, January 13, 2021. Under 5 CFR 

part 1320, an agency may not conduct 

or sponsor a collection of information 

unless it displays a current, valid OMB 

Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–1270. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1270. 

OMB Approval Date: September 8, 

2021. 

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 

2024. 

Title: Protecting National Security 

Through FCC Programs. 

Form Number: FCC Form 5640 and 

FCC Form 5641. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 3,500 respondents; 10,250 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5–12 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: Annual, semiannual and recordkeeping requirements. 

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory 

and required to obtain or retain benefits. 

Statutory authority for this information 

collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 

1603–1604. 

Total Annual Burden: 27,400 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: 1,125,000. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

The Commission is not requesting that 

respondents submit confidential 

information to the FCC. However, 

respondents may request confidential 

treatment of their information under 47 

CFR 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 

Needs and Uses: On November 22, 

2019, the Commission adopted the 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through FCC Programs, WC 

Docket No. 18–89, Report and Order, 

Order, and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 11423 (2019) 

(Report and Order). The Report and 

Order prohibits future use of Universal 

Service Fund (USF) monies to purchase, 

maintain, improve, modify, obtain, or 

otherwise support any equipment or 

services produced or provided by a 

company that poses a national security 

threat to the integrity of 

communications networks or the 

communications supply chain. 

On March 12, 2020, the President 

signed into law the Secure and Trusted 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1