Administrative Priority and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, 86545-86551 [2020-28820]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
• Email: InformationCollection@
uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0042
information request’’ in the subject line
of the message.
• Mail: Kimberly Hardy, Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer, United
States Patent and Trademark Office,
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–
1450.
Kimberly Hardy,
Information Collections Officer, Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer, United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2020–28869 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2020–OPEPD–0096]
Administrative Priority and Definitions
for Discretionary Grant Programs
Office of Planning, Evaluation
and Policy Development, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and definitions.
AGENCY:
The Secretary of Education
announces a priority and definitions for
discretionary grant programs that the
Secretary may use in fiscal year (FY)
2021 and later years to promote the use
of the Department of Education’s (the
Department’s) discretionary grants
funds to support remote learning.
DATES: The priority and definitions are
effective January 29, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 205–5231. Email:
kelly.terpak@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:
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–
3.
We published a notice of proposed
priority and definitions (NPP) in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2020
(85 FR 55439). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular
administrative priority and definitions.
We have made minor revisions to
paragraphs (b) and (f) of the priority and
to the definition of ‘‘interoperable
credentials,’’ which we explain in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes
section of this document.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, 16 parties
submitted comments.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
We group major issues according to
subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priority
and definitions.
Analysis of the Comments and
Changes: An analysis of the comments
and of any changes in the priority and
definitions since publication of the NPP
follows.
Comments: A few commenters asked
for clarity on how the priority would be
used and encouraged the Department to
prioritize certain applicants, such as
institutions of higher education, for
eligibility.
Discussion: As discussed in the NPP,
the priority is intended to build State
and local capacity to support remote
learning and instruction. The
Department may elect to use this
priority when inviting applications for a
discretionary grant program. The
Department has the discretion to choose
whether the priority and definitions are
appropriate for the competition after
considering program purpose,
feasibility, and scope. The Department
also has the discretion to choose how
the priority would apply; for example,
the priority may be used as an absolute
priority (applicants must address the
priority in order to be eligible to receive
grant funds) or a competitive preference
priority (applicants may receive
additional points depending on how
well they address the priority). We will
only use the priority and definitions for
a particular grant competition when it is
relevant and appropriate. Furthermore,
the Department is not required to use
the priority and definitions for any
particular program.
In any competition in which this
priority and definitions are used,
eligible entities are determined by the
program statute; therefore, we cannot
specify eligibility for a particular type of
entity as part of the final priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
proposed revisions to, or additional
language for, the background section
that accompanied the proposed priority
to emphasize the impact of school
closures for in-person instruction on
different populations, such as students
with disabilities, as well as specifics
related to learning losses discussed in
the cited study.
Discussion: We appreciate the
feedback we received on the NPP
background section, which explains our
rationale for this priority and
definitions. We agree with comments
that emphasized the impact of school
closures for in-person instruction on
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
86545
students with disabilities and other
groups of students and believe the
commenters’ concerns are sufficiently
addressed through paragraph (f) of the
priority. Moreover, we are revising
paragraph (f) so that a program may
choose to focus on a specific subgroup.
Additionally, we added language in
parentheticals clarifying that where the
commonly used terms used for the
subgroups of students in paragraph (f) or
similar terms are defined in the
applicable authorizing program statute,
these terms take on the statutory
definition that applies to the particular
program. For example, this priority
could be used in the Alaska Native
Education (ANE) program to encourage
projects that provide high-quality
remote learning to students who are
Alaska Natives, as defined in the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, as amended (ESEA), through the
use of paragraph (f)(iv) of the priority,
pertaining to Native American students.
Changes: We are modifying paragraph
(f) so that a program may choose to
focus on specific subgroups and have
clarified that the definitions of listed
subgroups may be based on the
program’s statutory authority, as
applicable.
Comments: Multiple commenters
requested that we reference Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act in the
accessibility requirement paragraph that
concludes the priority.
Discussion: We agree that accessibility
is important in ensuring all students can
access remote learning effectively, and
we have indicated so in various
paragraphs of the priority. Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act applies only to
Federal agencies, so recipients of
Federal financial assistance are not
required to comply with that law;
consequently, inclusion of Section 508
in the accessibility requirement has
limited applicability and is therefore
unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters
expressed concerns about the impact of
remote learning for students with
disabilities, including a concern that the
priority did not take into account the
individual needs of students identified
for services pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In addition, multiple commenters
expressed support for paragraph (f) of
the priority to target the needs of
specific subgroups, including students
with disabilities. However, one
commenter recommended the
Department remove the requirement
that paragraph (f) of the priority be used
only in conjunction with another
paragraph of the priority.
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
86546
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
Discussion: Students with disabilities
throughout the country who may be
eligible for services under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Section 504) or the IDEA must have
their individual learning needs met
from wherever they are learning.
Educators also need training and
support to provide effective remote
instruction. Through this priority, we
will promote strategies and practices for
delivering remote learning and
competency-based education that
effectively meet the individual needs of
students with disabilities, including:
Identifying the appropriate
technologies, assistive technologies, or
accessible educational materials needed
to ensure students with disabilities have
access to core or alternate curricula;
enhancing communication and
collaboration with parents and families
to identify the most effective
methodology and supports that will
meet the unique and individual needs of
students with disabilities; and ensuring
Individualized Education Program
teams and teams determining services
under Section 504 collaborate with
parents to identify the program, related
services, accommodations, and supports
the individual student will require in
order to derive an educational benefit
and achieve academic, functional, and
behavioral educational outcomes.
Lastly, paragraph (f) of the priority is
designed to target the work carried out
under paragraphs (a)–(e) of the priority
to a particular subgroup or subgroups of
students and leverage that work to focus
efforts. As such, paragraph (f) on its own
would not address fully the
improvements that would be supported
with this remote learning priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters
suggested adding language on the
principles of Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) in all the paragraphs of
the priority.
Discussion: The priority currently
refers to UDL in paragraph (a) of the
priority as an example. As written, the
language in the other paragraphs of the
priority could be inclusive of UDL as a
strategy for meeting the needs of
students with disabilities.
Further, the priority offers the
flexibility for applicants to address UDL
and similar strategies in their grant
applications. There is nothing in the
priority that would prohibit the use of
UDL. For these reasons, it is not
necessary to revise the priority to
include explicit references to the
strategy in all paragraphs of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter raised
concerns that the priority did not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
address all student populations most
impacted by remote learning, that
remote learning is not culturally
responsive, and that the assessments
need to be research-based. This
commenter also raised concern about
inequitable access to technology, stating
that the priority will further exacerbate
the ‘‘digital divide.’’ A second
commenter recommended removing the
10 percent limitation on technology
costs, citing concerns about access to
technology and the variance in that
access across the country.
Discussion: We appreciate the
concern that the remote learning
priority must consider the needs of all
students. We include paragraph (f) of
the priority which requires ‘‘highquality’’ remote learning for specific
subgroups of students, and we think
that the concept of high-quality remote
learning would include considerations
about what is culturally responsive, as
appropriate. We also generally defer to
applicants on how best to meet their
communities’ needs. Furthermore, the
intent of the remote learning priority is
to ensure that the Department provide
incentives to applicants that would
implement robust, effective, and
engaging remote learning strategies that
meet the needs of all students. In
addition, while we do not explicitly
require performance-based assessments
to be supported by research, in
paragraph (d) of the priority we do
require that the assessments obtain valid
and reliable results.
Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority
allowed for providing access to
technologies needed to serve learners.
The intent of proposed paragraph (c)
was to reduce the differences in access
to technology. We understand that
setting a limit on technology costs could
be prohibitive to successfully
implementing the remote learning
priority and understand that applicants
are best positioned to determine the
sufficient amount of resources needed to
invest in technology to support project
objectives. As such, we are removing the
cap on technology costs in paragraph (c)
of the proposed priority.
Changes: We are removing the last
sentence of paragraph (c) of the
proposed priority.
Comments: Multiple commenters
supported the priority, emphasized the
need for professional learning and the
usage of paragraph (b), and noted the
important role institutions of higher
education play in professional
development. One commenter asked
that the Department use paragraph (b) in
all competitions as an absolute priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for the priority. We agree that
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
professional learning is an important
part of effective remote learning and
agree that institutions of higher
education, along with a number of other
entities, can support professional
learning for educators. With respect to
using paragraph (b) as an absolute
priority across all discretionary grant
programs, the Department has discretion
in choosing whether and how to use the
priority based on its applicability to a
given program’s purpose, and those
decisions are best made on a programby-program basis.
Changes: None.
Comment: A couple of commenters
requested that the Department expand
paragraph (b), which is focused on
professional learning. One commenter
wanted paragraph (b) to align with the
definition of ‘‘professional
development’’ under the ESEA. Another
commenter said the examples in the
parenthetical for paragraph (b) should
be expanded with additional examples
to emphasize professional development
focused on student engagement and not
just professional development in
technology use.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest
in clarity and consistency in
terminology in this priority and other
statutes. However, the language about
professional development being
‘‘sustained and intensive’’ from the
definition of ‘‘professional
development’’ in ESEA is not
appropriate for this remote learning
priority. Our intent for this priority is to
help the Department’s grantees pivot
between in-person and remote learning
as needed. While remote learning in
response to the novel coronavirus 2019
(COVID–19) pandemic has been in place
for an extended period, not all remote
learning under this priority will be for
similar time frames, and professional
learning may not need to be ongoing to
address educator capacity for remote
learning.
In regard to the comment
recommending additional examples to
highlight professional learning activities
beyond technology, paragraph (b)
already includes a focus on professional
learning with the intent of advancing
student engagement and learning, but
we recognize the paragraph may appear
to highlight technology primarily. As
such, we are reorganizing the sentence
for paragraph (b) to clearly emphasize
increasing student engagement,
including through the use of technology.
Changes: We are revising paragraph
(b) so that it more clearly states that the
professional learning under this priority
is focused on student engagement and
learning through technology, rather than
emphasizing technology.
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
Comments: Multiple commenters
sought revisions to paragraph (d) of the
priority to clarify that performancebased assessments are important,
regardless of the connection to
competency-based education; that the
assessments must show true
competency; and that assessments
should not require seat time.
Commenters also asked the Department
to provide additional examples of
assessments.
Discussion: We agree that
performance-based assessments are
important and purposefully highlight
these kinds of assessments and seek
their development under paragraph (d)
of the priority. We agree that
performance-based assessments can be
separate from competency-based
education; however, we want to
emphasize competency-based education
in this paragraph of the remote learning
priority. Moreover, we want to
encourage assessments that demonstrate
competency, in keeping with the
recommendation from one commenter,
and we want to support assessments
that accurately document students’
skills. The examples included in
paragraph (d) do not need to be
exhaustive and are sufficient for the
purposes of the priority. Lastly, we do
not consider the priority or the
definition of ‘‘competency-based
education,’’ as written, to require a
particular amount of instruction or seat
time; rather, the definition of
‘‘competency-based education’’
specifically calls for assessments that
demonstrate progression ‘‘based on
demonstrated mastery of what students
are expected to know (knowledge) and
be able to do (skills), rather than seat
time or age.’’
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the ‘‘valid and reliable assessments’’
piece of paragraph (d) of the priority
that focused on assessments and
competency-based education should not
be limited to just summative
assessments.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s interest in not limiting
assessments to summative assessments
and focusing on formative assessments
as well. We do not consider the
inclusion of ‘‘valid and reliable’’ in
describing the assessments to mean that
they must only be summative
assessments. Rather, paragraph (d)
focuses on performance-based
assessments that document students’
skills and, under the definition of
‘‘competency-based education,’’
progression is based on demonstrated
mastery rather than seat time. However,
we want to clarify that the intent is for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
performance-based assessments to yield
valid and reliable results and are
therefore changing ‘‘obtain’’ in proposed
paragraph (d) to ‘‘yield.’’
Changes: We are revising ‘‘obtain’’ in
paragraph (d) of the proposed priority to
‘‘yield.’’
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we clarify the terms
‘‘hybrid/blended learning’’ and ‘‘linked
open data formats’’ used in the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest
in providing clarity in the priority and
the terminology used. We decline to
further define ‘‘hybrid/blended
learning,’’ as this term has various
meanings in the field depending on
specific contexts of a particular
community, and we do not think it is
necessary to define the term for
purposes of the priority. We also decline
to define ‘‘linked open data formats.’’
We think ‘‘open data’’ is a term widely
used at the Federal, State, and local
levels, and by ‘‘linked’’ we emphasize
the accessibility of the data. We do not
consider a separate definition to be
necessary and believe programs using
this priority will clarify how these terms
fit within their specific context.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether, under paragraph (f), the
Department should require applicants to
provide both high-quality remote
learning and competency-based
education in response to this paragraph,
or whether applicants should have the
flexibility to choose between remote
learning or competency-based
education, as provided in the proposed
priority.
Discussion: The proposed priority
would have offered applicants a choice
between providing remote learning or
competency-based education to specific
student subgroups. While a project
could support both remote learning and
competency-based education, in further
reviewing paragraph (f), we think
‘‘competency-based education’’ can be
removed from proposed paragraph (f)
because the broader priority is focused
on building capacity for remote
learning.
Changes: We are removing ‘‘or
competency-based education’’ from
paragraph (f) of the proposed priority.
Comment: One commenter proposed
limiting the definition of ‘‘remote
learning’’ to K–12 education given the
recent publication of the higher
education distance education
regulations, citing concern that existing
definitions in the higher education
context, including the definition for
‘‘distance education,’’ that include
remote learning concepts may spark
confusion. Specifically, ‘‘distance
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
86547
education’’ is defined in the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(HEA), as well as in the Distance
Education and Innovation regulations
published in the Federal Register on
September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54742).
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s consideration of whether
this priority and the ‘‘remote learning’’
definition is applicable in the higher
education context, as our intent is to
establish a priority that could be used in
grant programs across the Department,
including those for higher education.
We recognize that there are definitions
for ‘‘distance education’’ in section
103(7) of the HEA and ‘‘distance
learning’’ in section 8101(14) of the
ESEA. The definition of ‘‘remote
learning’’ is not meant to contradict or
supersede these definitions or the
definition of ‘‘distance education’’ in
the HEA or the higher education
Distance Education and Innovation
regulations; rather, it is meant to
provide context for those definitions
and clarify what is meant by remote
learning in the context of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported
the priority but asked that the definition
for ‘‘remote learning’’ also reference
non-technology models, such as service
learning, internships, and other
programs.
Discussion: We agree that remote
learning can include non-technology
models and highlight some of those as
examples in the ‘‘remote learning’’
definition. Given that the list of
examples is not exhaustive, nothing in
the definition prohibits other activities
in addition to the activities identified.
We, therefore, do not think adding
additional examples is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters
supported the inclusion of competencybased education in the priority, with
one commenter recommending a standalone priority focused on competencybased education, arguing that
competency-based education, while it
can be used in conjunction with
technology, does not require technology.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for inclusion of competency-based
education in the priority and
definitions. We agree that competencybased education is important, and the
Department previously included
‘‘competency-based learning’’ in Priority
3—Fostering Flexible and Affordable
Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and
Skills in the Secretary’s Final
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions
for Discretionary Grant Programs
(Supplemental Priorities) published in
the Federal Register on March 2, 2018
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
86548
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
(83 FR 9096). As such, we do not need
to create an additional, separate priority
for competency-based education.
Further, we decline to remove the
reference to ‘‘competency-based
education’’ in paragraph (a) because our
intent is to encourage competency-based
education in remote learning
environments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters
recommended changes to the definition
of ‘‘competency-based education,’’
including adding references to
credentials that are inclusive of all
students, include appropriate pacing,
and are student focused. An additional
commenter proposed limiting the
definition for ‘‘competency-based
education’’ to K–12 education given the
recent publication of the higher
education Distance Education and
Innovation regulations and concern
about confusion when used in the
higher education context, especially
since competency-based education was
not defined in those regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate comments
suggesting that we revise the definition
of ‘‘competency-based education.’’ We
proposed to define the term as
‘‘competency-based education,’’ which
was included as an example in
paragraph (a) of the priority and is
central to the performance-based
assessments piece of paragraph (d). The
definition as written is inclusive of all
students, allows for demonstration of
mastery as a result of self-paced
learning, and provides a broad
understanding of competency-based
education for operationalizing within
the context of the remote learning
priority. The definition of ‘‘competencybased education’’ for the remote
learning priority is consistent with other
Department usage and definitions of
‘‘competency-based education,’’
including the Rural Tech Project
(https://www.ruraltechproject.com/).
As to the concern about usage of the
priority and the ‘‘competency-based
education’’ definition in higher
education, the Department has the
discretion for each grant program to
choose if the priority should be used in
a given competition considering the
program’s purpose, feasibility, and
scope, and, if so, how the priority would
apply; for example, a program may
choose to use only paragraph (a) of the
priority. As noted above, competencybased education is part of an illustrative
list in paragraph (a), and an applicant is
not required to address all items in that
list. Competency-based education is
more central to paragraph (d), but the
Department may choose whether to use
paragraph (d) when including the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
remote learning priority in a particular
grant competition, taking into
consideration the program’s statute and
other relevant regulations. As noted
earlier, the Department will make
program-by-program decisions about
when and how to use the remote
learning priority, including in the
higher education context. Moreover, the
definition of ‘‘competency-based
education’’ does not contradict or
supersede any of the Distance Education
and Innovation regulations; rather, it is
meant to clarify what is meant by
‘‘competency-based education’’ in the
context of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported
the inclusion of interoperable
credentials in the priority and
definitions and recommended that the
Department include interoperable
credential requirements in all
discretionary grant competitions. In the
definition, the commenter proposed that
we change ‘‘common standardized
frameworks’’ to ‘‘nationally recognized
and widely used educational or
professional learning standards.’’
Discussion: We agree that
interoperable credentials are important
and appreciate the support for
paragraph (e) of the priority. The
Department has discretion in choosing
whether and how to use the priority for
all of our grant competitions. We decide
to use a particular priority based on
careful consideration of whether the
priority and definitions are appropriate
for each competition with regard to
program purpose, feasibility, and scope.
In regard to the recommendation to
refer to ‘‘nationally recognized and
widely used educational or professional
learning standards’’ rather than
‘‘common standardized frameworks,’’
we appreciate the interest in ensuring
clarity in terminology. We note the
white papers hosted on the U.S.
Department of Commerce website
designed to provide clarity regarding,
among other things, ‘‘credentials,’’
which include a focus on ‘‘common
standardized frameworks’’: ‘‘White
Paper on Interoperable Learning
Records’’ (www.commerce.gov/sites/
default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_
FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ‘‘Learning and
Employment Records: Progress and the
path forward’’ (www.commerce.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-09/
LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf).
Moreover, we do not think the
Department should endorse specific
national standards related to
credentialing, and, as such, we do not
consider it appropriate to revise the
definition as the commenter suggested.
Though there are many standards that
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
could apply to credentials, we expect
applicants and grantees will choose
standards that are widely accepted and
meet the needs of their projects.
Therefore, we are not making any
changes to the reference to, or definition
of, ‘‘interoperable credentials.’’
Changes: None.
Comment: In reference to
competency-based education and
interoperable credentials, one
commenter recommended adding
specific references to ‘‘short-term
credentials,’’ such as micro-credentials,
to clearly demonstrate that credentials
are broader than traditional, time-bound
programs.
Discussion: We agree that the intent
behind inclusion of competency-based
education and interoperable credentials
in the priority and definitions is to
broaden practitioners’ use of
credentials. As such, we are adding
examples of some of these short-term
credentials to highlight other less
traditional credential types.
Change: In the definition for
‘‘interoperable credentials,’’ we have
added references to micro-, stackable,
and other types of short-term
credentials.
Comment: One commenter proposed
limiting the definition of ‘‘interoperable
credentials’’ to K–12 education, stating
that the term is not one used in the
higher education context.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s consideration of whether
the ‘‘interoperable credentials’’
definition is applicable in the higher
education context, as our intent is to
have a priority that could be used in
grant programs across the Department,
including those for postsecondary
education. Credentials are more than
specific postsecondary degrees; they can
be smaller units and time bound.
Examples of these types of credentials
include micro-credentials and stackable
credentials, which can be used for
professional development, and we think
it is important for all education sectors
to think more broadly about credentials
and their interoperability.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters asked
whether the definition of ‘‘interoperable
credentials’’ creates two sets of
requirements, for the credentials
themselves and for data and information
sharing relating to the credentials. The
commenters suggested clarifying
revisions. Given that the term included
two distinct points, the commenters had
concerns about confusion when
defining ‘‘interoperable credentials.’’
The commenters proposed edits to
clarify the distinction.
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
In addition, one of the commenters
also expressed the importance of
transparency related to interoperable
credentials and proposed a new
definition for ‘‘credential transparency.’’
Discussion: Through this definition,
the Department is establishing
requirements both with respect to the
credentials generally and with respect to
their interoperability. Although there
are many types of credentials, including
some that may not be interoperable, we
intentionally use the term
‘‘interoperable credentials’’ in this
priority because we are especially
interested in promoting recognizable,
transferrable, and transparent evidence
of mastery. Defining the term
‘‘interoperable credentials’’ does not
imply that other forms of credentials do
not exist.
Credential transparency is embedded
in the definition, particularly through
the requirement of ‘‘open standards,’’
and, as the commenter points out, there
are many organizations focused on
making credentials transparent and
available to users. We note the white
papers hosted on the U.S. Department of
Commerce website as examples of the
efforts to promote credential
transparency and interoperability, in
this case in the context of learner
employment records: ‘‘White Paper on
Interoperable Learning Records’’
(www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/
2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_
EBOOK.pdf) and ‘‘Learning and
Employment Records: Progress and the
path forward’’ (www.commerce.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-09/
LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). We, thus,
do not think a separate definition or
additional clarification of the definition
is needed.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Building Capacity for Remote Learning
Under this priority, an applicant must
propose a project that is designed to
address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Adopting and supporting models
that leverage technology (e.g., universal
design for learning, competency-based
education (as defined in this notice), or
hybrid/blended learning) and provide
high-quality digital learning content,
applications, and tools.
(b) Providing personalized and jobembedded professional learning to build
the capacity of educators to create
remote learning experiences that
advance student engagement and
learning through effective use of
technology (e.g., synchronous and
asynchronous professional learning,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
professional learning networks or
communities, and coaching).
(c) Providing access to any of the
following, in particular to serve learners
without access to such technologies:
Reliable, high-speed internet, learning
devices, or software applications that
meet all students’ and educators’ remote
learning needs while inside the school
building and in remote learning
environments.
(d) Developing performance-based
assessments that promote competencybased education and can be delivered
remotely or in-person to students and
yield valid and reliable results that
accurately document students’ skills
(e.g., inquiry/game-based assessment or
data visualization tools for monitoring
ongoing learning).
(e) Supporting the development of
digital interoperable credentials (as
defined in this notice) that make
transparent the competencies achieved
through remote learning experiences
and allow students to access, control,
and share their achievements across a
variety of education and training
processes (formal or informal,
classroom-based, remote, or workplacebased). Information on these credentials
must be publicly accessible using linked
open data formats to ensure their
transferability and the continuity of
learning for students.
(f) Providing high-quality remote
learning specifically for one or more of
the following student subgroups:
(i) Students from low-income (as may
be defined in the program’s authorizing
statute) families;
(ii) Children or students with
disabilities (as may be defined in the
program’s authorizing statute);
(iii) English learners (as may be
defined in the program’s authorizing
statute);
(iv) Native American (as may be
defined in the program’s authorizing
statute) students;
(v) Homeless (as may be defined in
the program’s authorizing statute)
students ; or
(vi) Students attending schools in
rural (as may be defined in the
program’s authorizing statute) areas.
The remote learning environment
must be accessible to individuals with
disabilities in accordance with Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, as applicable. The
remote learning environment must also
provide appropriate remote learning
language assistance services to English
learners.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
86549
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 the priority and definitions, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the
following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant
competition in which the final priority
is used:
Competency-based education (also
called proficiency-based or masterybased learning) means learning based on
knowledge and skills that are
transparent and measurable. Progression
is based on demonstrated mastery of
what students are expected to know
(knowledge) and be able to do (skills),
rather than seat time or age.
Interoperable credentials are those
credentials built using open standards
so that they are shareable, verifiable,
portable, and secure. The credentials
describe the specific achievements, such
as credential type, skill level, or other
information, using common,
standardized frameworks so that the
data are machine readable,
exchangeable, and actionable across
technology systems and, when
appropriate, on the web. When
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
86550
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
credentials are interoperable, a full
range of an individual’s skills and
achievements, earned through formal
and informal learning experiences or
workplace-based training, can be
collected together and verified,
regardless of available technology
systems, reducing challenges as
individuals transition between
education and employment. These
credentials include traditional academic
credentials, as well as micro-, stackable,
and other types of short-term credentials
earned through short-term, professional
development, or non-credit bearing
educational experiences.
Remote learning means programming
where at least part of the learning occurs
away from the physical building in a
manner that addresses a learner’s
education needs. Remote learning may
include online, hybrid/blended
learning, or non-technology-based
learning (e.g., lab kits, project supplies,
paper packets).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must
be determined whether this regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the
Executive order and subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(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.
Under Executive Order 13771, for
each new regulation that the
Department proposes for notice and
comment or otherwise promulgates that
is a significant regulatory action under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
Executive Order 12866, and that
imposes total costs greater than zero, it
must identify two deregulatory actions.
For FY 2021, any new incremental costs
associated with a new regulation must
be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory
actions. However, Executive Order
13771 does not apply to ‘‘transfer rules’’
that cause only income transfers
between taxpayers and program
beneficiaries, such as those regarding
discretionary grant programs. Because
the priority and definitions would be
used in connection with one or more
discretionary grant programs, Executive
Order 13771 does not apply.
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its 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 this final priority and
definitions only on a reasoned
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
determination that their benefits justify
their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory 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 both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those we have determined as
necessary for administering the
Department’s programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and
Benefits
The Department believes that this
regulatory action will not impose
significant costs on eligible entities,
whose participation in our programs is
voluntary, and costs can generally be
covered with grant funds. As a result,
the priority and definitions will not
impose any particular burden except
when an entity voluntarily elects to
apply for a grant. The benefits of the
priority and definitions will outweigh
any associated costs because they will
help ensure that the Department’s
discretionary grant programs select
high-quality applicants to implement
activities that are designed to address
critical remote learning needs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification: The Secretary certifies that
this regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The U.S. Small Business Administration
Size Standards define proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they
are independently owned and operated,
are not dominant in their field of
operation, and have total annual
revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit
institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and
operated and not dominant in their field
of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they
are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing
to grantees or eligible entities, all are
voluntary and related mostly to an
increase in the number of applications
prepared and submitted annually for
competitive grant competitions.
Therefore, we do not believe that the
final priority and definitions will
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Notices
significantly impact small entities
beyond the potential for increasing the
likelihood of their applying for, and
receiving, competitive grants from the
Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These final priority and definitions
contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1894–0009;
the final priority and definitions do not
affect the currently approved data
collection.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for the Department’s
discretionary grant programs.
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.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–28820 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. NJ21–7–000]
City of Colton, California; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order
Take notice that on December 16,
2020, pursuant to Rules 205 and 207 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.205, 385.207,
and consistent with the provisions of
the Transmission Owner (TO) Tariff, the
City of Colton, California (Colton),
submitted a petition for a declaratory
order requesting that the Commission
(1) accept Colton’s seventh annual
revision to its Transmission Revenue
Balancing Account Adjustment
(TRBAA); (2) approve Colton’s annual
update to the costs of its Existing
Transmission Contract (ETC) with
Southern California Edison Company
for the purpose of recovery of such costs
through the ETC Pass-through Clause
contained in Colton’s TO Tariff; (3)
accept revisions to Appendix I to
Colton’s TO Tariff to reflect Colton’s
revised TRBAA, ETC costs, and updated
Base and High Voltage Transmission
Revenue Requirements (TRR); (4) to the
extent necessary, waive the sixty-day
notice requirement provided for in the
Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR
35.3(a); (5) waive the filing fee
associated with this Petition that is
provided for by Rule 207 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207; and (6)
grant any other relief or waivers
necessary or appropriate for approval
and implementation of the revisions to
Colton’s Base TRR (including the
updated ETC cost components),
TRBAA, High Voltage TRR, and
modifications to Colton’s TO Tariff
effective as of January 1, 2021, as more
fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).
Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. Anyone filing a motion
to intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings of comments, protests
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
86551
and interventions in lieu of paper using
the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand
delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to
Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
In addition to publishing the full text
of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link.
Enter the docket number excluding the
last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this
time, the Commission has suspended
access to the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call
toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202)
502–8659.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on January 6, 2021.
Dated: December 22, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–28834 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 539–015]
Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of
Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: New Major
License.
b. Project No.: 539–015.
c. Date Filed: April 30, 2020.
d. Applicant: Lock 7 Hydro Partners,
LLC (Lock 7 Hydro).
e. Name of Project: Mother Ann Lee
Hydroelectric Station Water Power
Project (Mother Ann Lee Project).
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86545-86551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28820]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2020-OPEPD-0096]
Administrative Priority and Definitions for Discretionary Grant
Programs
AGENCY: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces a priority and
definitions for discretionary grant programs that the Secretary may use
in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years to promote the use of the
Department of Education's (the Department's) discretionary grants funds
to support remote learning.
DATES: The priority and definitions are effective January 29, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 205-5231. Email: [email protected].
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:
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
We published a notice of proposed priority and definitions (NPP) in
the Federal Register on September 8, 2020 (85 FR 55439). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular administrative priority and definitions.
We have made minor revisions to paragraphs (b) and (f) of the
priority and to the definition of ``interoperable credentials,'' which
we explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this
document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 16
parties submitted comments.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to
the proposed priority and definitions.
Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
and of any changes in the priority and definitions since publication of
the NPP follows.
Comments: A few commenters asked for clarity on how the priority
would be used and encouraged the Department to prioritize certain
applicants, such as institutions of higher education, for eligibility.
Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, the priority is intended to
build State and local capacity to support remote learning and
instruction. The Department may elect to use this priority when
inviting applications for a discretionary grant program. The Department
has the discretion to choose whether the priority and definitions are
appropriate for the competition after considering program purpose,
feasibility, and scope. The Department also has the discretion to
choose how the priority would apply; for example, the priority may be
used as an absolute priority (applicants must address the priority in
order to be eligible to receive grant funds) or a competitive
preference priority (applicants may receive additional points depending
on how well they address the priority). We will only use the priority
and definitions for a particular grant competition when it is relevant
and appropriate. Furthermore, the Department is not required to use the
priority and definitions for any particular program.
In any competition in which this priority and definitions are used,
eligible entities are determined by the program statute; therefore, we
cannot specify eligibility for a particular type of entity as part of
the final priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters proposed revisions to, or additional
language for, the background section that accompanied the proposed
priority to emphasize the impact of school closures for in-person
instruction on different populations, such as students with
disabilities, as well as specifics related to learning losses discussed
in the cited study.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the NPP
background section, which explains our rationale for this priority and
definitions. We agree with comments that emphasized the impact of
school closures for in-person instruction on students with disabilities
and other groups of students and believe the commenters' concerns are
sufficiently addressed through paragraph (f) of the priority. Moreover,
we are revising paragraph (f) so that a program may choose to focus on
a specific subgroup. Additionally, we added language in parentheticals
clarifying that where the commonly used terms used for the subgroups of
students in paragraph (f) or similar terms are defined in the
applicable authorizing program statute, these terms take on the
statutory definition that applies to the particular program. For
example, this priority could be used in the Alaska Native Education
(ANE) program to encourage projects that provide high-quality remote
learning to students who are Alaska Natives, as defined in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA), through the
use of paragraph (f)(iv) of the priority, pertaining to Native American
students.
Changes: We are modifying paragraph (f) so that a program may
choose to focus on specific subgroups and have clarified that the
definitions of listed subgroups may be based on the program's statutory
authority, as applicable.
Comments: Multiple commenters requested that we reference Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the accessibility requirement
paragraph that concludes the priority.
Discussion: We agree that accessibility is important in ensuring
all students can access remote learning effectively, and we have
indicated so in various paragraphs of the priority. Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act applies only to Federal agencies, so recipients of
Federal financial assistance are not required to comply with that law;
consequently, inclusion of Section 508 in the accessibility requirement
has limited applicability and is therefore unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns about the impact
of remote learning for students with disabilities, including a concern
that the priority did not take into account the individual needs of
students identified for services pursuant to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In addition, multiple commenters expressed support for paragraph
(f) of the priority to target the needs of specific subgroups,
including students with disabilities. However, one commenter
recommended the Department remove the requirement that paragraph (f) of
the priority be used only in conjunction with another paragraph of the
priority.
[[Page 86546]]
Discussion: Students with disabilities throughout the country who
may be eligible for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Section 504) or the IDEA must have their individual
learning needs met from wherever they are learning. Educators also need
training and support to provide effective remote instruction. Through
this priority, we will promote strategies and practices for delivering
remote learning and competency-based education that effectively meet
the individual needs of students with disabilities, including:
Identifying the appropriate technologies, assistive technologies, or
accessible educational materials needed to ensure students with
disabilities have access to core or alternate curricula; enhancing
communication and collaboration with parents and families to identify
the most effective methodology and supports that will meet the unique
and individual needs of students with disabilities; and ensuring
Individualized Education Program teams and teams determining services
under Section 504 collaborate with parents to identify the program,
related services, accommodations, and supports the individual student
will require in order to derive an educational benefit and achieve
academic, functional, and behavioral educational outcomes.
Lastly, paragraph (f) of the priority is designed to target the
work carried out under paragraphs (a)-(e) of the priority to a
particular subgroup or subgroups of students and leverage that work to
focus efforts. As such, paragraph (f) on its own would not address
fully the improvements that would be supported with this remote
learning priority.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters suggested adding language on the
principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in all the paragraphs
of the priority.
Discussion: The priority currently refers to UDL in paragraph (a)
of the priority as an example. As written, the language in the other
paragraphs of the priority could be inclusive of UDL as a strategy for
meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
Further, the priority offers the flexibility for applicants to
address UDL and similar strategies in their grant applications. There
is nothing in the priority that would prohibit the use of UDL. For
these reasons, it is not necessary to revise the priority to include
explicit references to the strategy in all paragraphs of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter raised concerns that the priority did not
address all student populations most impacted by remote learning, that
remote learning is not culturally responsive, and that the assessments
need to be research-based. This commenter also raised concern about
inequitable access to technology, stating that the priority will
further exacerbate the ``digital divide.'' A second commenter
recommended removing the 10 percent limitation on technology costs,
citing concerns about access to technology and the variance in that
access across the country.
Discussion: We appreciate the concern that the remote learning
priority must consider the needs of all students. We include paragraph
(f) of the priority which requires ``high-quality'' remote learning for
specific subgroups of students, and we think that the concept of high-
quality remote learning would include considerations about what is
culturally responsive, as appropriate. We also generally defer to
applicants on how best to meet their communities' needs. Furthermore,
the intent of the remote learning priority is to ensure that the
Department provide incentives to applicants that would implement
robust, effective, and engaging remote learning strategies that meet
the needs of all students. In addition, while we do not explicitly
require performance-based assessments to be supported by research, in
paragraph (d) of the priority we do require that the assessments obtain
valid and reliable results.
Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority allowed for providing access
to technologies needed to serve learners. The intent of proposed
paragraph (c) was to reduce the differences in access to technology. We
understand that setting a limit on technology costs could be
prohibitive to successfully implementing the remote learning priority
and understand that applicants are best positioned to determine the
sufficient amount of resources needed to invest in technology to
support project objectives. As such, we are removing the cap on
technology costs in paragraph (c) of the proposed priority.
Changes: We are removing the last sentence of paragraph (c) of the
proposed priority.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported the priority, emphasized
the need for professional learning and the usage of paragraph (b), and
noted the important role institutions of higher education play in
professional development. One commenter asked that the Department use
paragraph (b) in all competitions as an absolute priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority. We agree
that professional learning is an important part of effective remote
learning and agree that institutions of higher education, along with a
number of other entities, can support professional learning for
educators. With respect to using paragraph (b) as an absolute priority
across all discretionary grant programs, the Department has discretion
in choosing whether and how to use the priority based on its
applicability to a given program's purpose, and those decisions are
best made on a program-by-program basis.
Changes: None.
Comment: A couple of commenters requested that the Department
expand paragraph (b), which is focused on professional learning. One
commenter wanted paragraph (b) to align with the definition of
``professional development'' under the ESEA. Another commenter said the
examples in the parenthetical for paragraph (b) should be expanded with
additional examples to emphasize professional development focused on
student engagement and not just professional development in technology
use.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarity and consistency
in terminology in this priority and other statutes. However, the
language about professional development being ``sustained and
intensive'' from the definition of ``professional development'' in ESEA
is not appropriate for this remote learning priority. Our intent for
this priority is to help the Department's grantees pivot between in-
person and remote learning as needed. While remote learning in response
to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been in place for
an extended period, not all remote learning under this priority will be
for similar time frames, and professional learning may not need to be
ongoing to address educator capacity for remote learning.
In regard to the comment recommending additional examples to
highlight professional learning activities beyond technology, paragraph
(b) already includes a focus on professional learning with the intent
of advancing student engagement and learning, but we recognize the
paragraph may appear to highlight technology primarily. As such, we are
reorganizing the sentence for paragraph (b) to clearly emphasize
increasing student engagement, including through the use of technology.
Changes: We are revising paragraph (b) so that it more clearly
states that the professional learning under this priority is focused on
student engagement and learning through technology, rather than
emphasizing technology.
[[Page 86547]]
Comments: Multiple commenters sought revisions to paragraph (d) of
the priority to clarify that performance-based assessments are
important, regardless of the connection to competency-based education;
that the assessments must show true competency; and that assessments
should not require seat time. Commenters also asked the Department to
provide additional examples of assessments.
Discussion: We agree that performance-based assessments are
important and purposefully highlight these kinds of assessments and
seek their development under paragraph (d) of the priority. We agree
that performance-based assessments can be separate from competency-
based education; however, we want to emphasize competency-based
education in this paragraph of the remote learning priority. Moreover,
we want to encourage assessments that demonstrate competency, in
keeping with the recommendation from one commenter, and we want to
support assessments that accurately document students' skills. The
examples included in paragraph (d) do not need to be exhaustive and are
sufficient for the purposes of the priority. Lastly, we do not consider
the priority or the definition of ``competency-based education,'' as
written, to require a particular amount of instruction or seat time;
rather, the definition of ``competency-based education'' specifically
calls for assessments that demonstrate progression ``based on
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge)
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.''
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the ``valid and reliable
assessments'' piece of paragraph (d) of the priority that focused on
assessments and competency-based education should not be limited to
just summative assessments.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in not limiting
assessments to summative assessments and focusing on formative
assessments as well. We do not consider the inclusion of ``valid and
reliable'' in describing the assessments to mean that they must only be
summative assessments. Rather, paragraph (d) focuses on performance-
based assessments that document students' skills and, under the
definition of ``competency-based education,'' progression is based on
demonstrated mastery rather than seat time. However, we want to clarify
that the intent is for performance-based assessments to yield valid and
reliable results and are therefore changing ``obtain'' in proposed
paragraph (d) to ``yield.''
Changes: We are revising ``obtain'' in paragraph (d) of the
proposed priority to ``yield.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify the terms
``hybrid/blended learning'' and ``linked open data formats'' used in
the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the interest in providing clarity in the
priority and the terminology used. We decline to further define
``hybrid/blended learning,'' as this term has various meanings in the
field depending on specific contexts of a particular community, and we
do not think it is necessary to define the term for purposes of the
priority. We also decline to define ``linked open data formats.'' We
think ``open data'' is a term widely used at the Federal, State, and
local levels, and by ``linked'' we emphasize the accessibility of the
data. We do not consider a separate definition to be necessary and
believe programs using this priority will clarify how these terms fit
within their specific context.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether, under paragraph (f), the
Department should require applicants to provide both high-quality
remote learning and competency-based education in response to this
paragraph, or whether applicants should have the flexibility to choose
between remote learning or competency-based education, as provided in
the proposed priority.
Discussion: The proposed priority would have offered applicants a
choice between providing remote learning or competency-based education
to specific student subgroups. While a project could support both
remote learning and competency-based education, in further reviewing
paragraph (f), we think ``competency-based education'' can be removed
from proposed paragraph (f) because the broader priority is focused on
building capacity for remote learning.
Changes: We are removing ``or competency-based education'' from
paragraph (f) of the proposed priority.
Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of ``remote
learning'' to K-12 education given the recent publication of the higher
education distance education regulations, citing concern that existing
definitions in the higher education context, including the definition
for ``distance education,'' that include remote learning concepts may
spark confusion. Specifically, ``distance education'' is defined in the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), as well as in the
Distance Education and Innovation regulations published in the Federal
Register on September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54742).
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether
this priority and the ``remote learning'' definition is applicable in
the higher education context, as our intent is to establish a priority
that could be used in grant programs across the Department, including
those for higher education. We recognize that there are definitions for
``distance education'' in section 103(7) of the HEA and ``distance
learning'' in section 8101(14) of the ESEA. The definition of ``remote
learning'' is not meant to contradict or supersede these definitions or
the definition of ``distance education'' in the HEA or the higher
education Distance Education and Innovation regulations; rather, it is
meant to provide context for those definitions and clarify what is
meant by remote learning in the context of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the priority but asked that the
definition for ``remote learning'' also reference non-technology
models, such as service learning, internships, and other programs.
Discussion: We agree that remote learning can include non-
technology models and highlight some of those as examples in the
``remote learning'' definition. Given that the list of examples is not
exhaustive, nothing in the definition prohibits other activities in
addition to the activities identified. We, therefore, do not think
adding additional examples is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters supported the inclusion of
competency-based education in the priority, with one commenter
recommending a stand-alone priority focused on competency-based
education, arguing that competency-based education, while it can be
used in conjunction with technology, does not require technology.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for inclusion of competency-
based education in the priority and definitions. We agree that
competency-based education is important, and the Department previously
included ``competency-based learning'' in Priority 3--Fostering
Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and Skills in the
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for
Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities) published in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2018
[[Page 86548]]
(83 FR 9096). As such, we do not need to create an additional, separate
priority for competency-based education. Further, we decline to remove
the reference to ``competency-based education'' in paragraph (a)
because our intent is to encourage competency-based education in remote
learning environments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters recommended changes to the definition
of ``competency-based education,'' including adding references to
credentials that are inclusive of all students, include appropriate
pacing, and are student focused. An additional commenter proposed
limiting the definition for ``competency-based education'' to K-12
education given the recent publication of the higher education Distance
Education and Innovation regulations and concern about confusion when
used in the higher education context, especially since competency-based
education was not defined in those regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate comments suggesting that we revise the
definition of ``competency-based education.'' We proposed to define the
term as ``competency-based education,'' which was included as an
example in paragraph (a) of the priority and is central to the
performance-based assessments piece of paragraph (d). The definition as
written is inclusive of all students, allows for demonstration of
mastery as a result of self-paced learning, and provides a broad
understanding of competency-based education for operationalizing within
the context of the remote learning priority. The definition of
``competency-based education'' for the remote learning priority is
consistent with other Department usage and definitions of ``competency-
based education,'' including the Rural Tech Project (https://www.ruraltechproject.com/).
As to the concern about usage of the priority and the ``competency-
based education'' definition in higher education, the Department has
the discretion for each grant program to choose if the priority should
be used in a given competition considering the program's purpose,
feasibility, and scope, and, if so, how the priority would apply; for
example, a program may choose to use only paragraph (a) of the
priority. As noted above, competency-based education is part of an
illustrative list in paragraph (a), and an applicant is not required to
address all items in that list. Competency-based education is more
central to paragraph (d), but the Department may choose whether to use
paragraph (d) when including the remote learning priority in a
particular grant competition, taking into consideration the program's
statute and other relevant regulations. As noted earlier, the
Department will make program-by-program decisions about when and how to
use the remote learning priority, including in the higher education
context. Moreover, the definition of ``competency-based education''
does not contradict or supersede any of the Distance Education and
Innovation regulations; rather, it is meant to clarify what is meant by
``competency-based education'' in the context of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of interoperable
credentials in the priority and definitions and recommended that the
Department include interoperable credential requirements in all
discretionary grant competitions. In the definition, the commenter
proposed that we change ``common standardized frameworks'' to
``nationally recognized and widely used educational or professional
learning standards.''
Discussion: We agree that interoperable credentials are important
and appreciate the support for paragraph (e) of the priority. The
Department has discretion in choosing whether and how to use the
priority for all of our grant competitions. We decide to use a
particular priority based on careful consideration of whether the
priority and definitions are appropriate for each competition with
regard to program purpose, feasibility, and scope.
In regard to the recommendation to refer to ``nationally recognized
and widely used educational or professional learning standards'' rather
than ``common standardized frameworks,'' we appreciate the interest in
ensuring clarity in terminology. We note the white papers hosted on the
U.S. Department of Commerce website designed to provide clarity
regarding, among other things, ``credentials,'' which include a focus
on ``common standardized frameworks'': ``White Paper on Interoperable
Learning Records'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ``Learning and Employment Records:
Progress and the path forward'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). Moreover, we do not think the
Department should endorse specific national standards related to
credentialing, and, as such, we do not consider it appropriate to
revise the definition as the commenter suggested. Though there are many
standards that could apply to credentials, we expect applicants and
grantees will choose standards that are widely accepted and meet the
needs of their projects. Therefore, we are not making any changes to
the reference to, or definition of, ``interoperable credentials.''
Changes: None.
Comment: In reference to competency-based education and
interoperable credentials, one commenter recommended adding specific
references to ``short-term credentials,'' such as micro-credentials, to
clearly demonstrate that credentials are broader than traditional,
time-bound programs.
Discussion: We agree that the intent behind inclusion of
competency-based education and interoperable credentials in the
priority and definitions is to broaden practitioners' use of
credentials. As such, we are adding examples of some of these short-
term credentials to highlight other less traditional credential types.
Change: In the definition for ``interoperable credentials,'' we
have added references to micro-, stackable, and other types of short-
term credentials.
Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of
``interoperable credentials'' to K-12 education, stating that the term
is not one used in the higher education context.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether
the ``interoperable credentials'' definition is applicable in the
higher education context, as our intent is to have a priority that
could be used in grant programs across the Department, including those
for postsecondary education. Credentials are more than specific
postsecondary degrees; they can be smaller units and time bound.
Examples of these types of credentials include micro-credentials and
stackable credentials, which can be used for professional development,
and we think it is important for all education sectors to think more
broadly about credentials and their interoperability.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters asked whether the definition of
``interoperable credentials'' creates two sets of requirements, for the
credentials themselves and for data and information sharing relating to
the credentials. The commenters suggested clarifying revisions. Given
that the term included two distinct points, the commenters had concerns
about confusion when defining ``interoperable credentials.'' The
commenters proposed edits to clarify the distinction.
[[Page 86549]]
In addition, one of the commenters also expressed the importance of
transparency related to interoperable credentials and proposed a new
definition for ``credential transparency.''
Discussion: Through this definition, the Department is establishing
requirements both with respect to the credentials generally and with
respect to their interoperability. Although there are many types of
credentials, including some that may not be interoperable, we
intentionally use the term ``interoperable credentials'' in this
priority because we are especially interested in promoting
recognizable, transferrable, and transparent evidence of mastery.
Defining the term ``interoperable credentials'' does not imply that
other forms of credentials do not exist.
Credential transparency is embedded in the definition, particularly
through the requirement of ``open standards,'' and, as the commenter
points out, there are many organizations focused on making credentials
transparent and available to users. We note the white papers hosted on
the U.S. Department of Commerce website as examples of the efforts to
promote credential transparency and interoperability, in this case in
the context of learner employment records: ``White Paper on
Interoperable Learning Records'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ``Learning and Employment
Records: Progress and the path forward'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). We, thus, do not
think a separate definition or additional clarification of the
definition is needed.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Building Capacity for Remote Learning
Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project that is
designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Adopting and supporting models that leverage technology (e.g.,
universal design for learning, competency-based education (as defined
in this notice), or hybrid/blended learning) and provide high-quality
digital learning content, applications, and tools.
(b) Providing personalized and job-embedded professional learning
to build the capacity of educators to create remote learning
experiences that advance student engagement and learning through
effective use of technology (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous
professional learning, professional learning networks or communities,
and coaching).
(c) Providing access to any of the following, in particular to
serve learners without access to such technologies: Reliable, high-
speed internet, learning devices, or software applications that meet
all students' and educators' remote learning needs while inside the
school building and in remote learning environments.
(d) Developing performance-based assessments that promote
competency-based education and can be delivered remotely or in-person
to students and yield valid and reliable results that accurately
document students' skills (e.g., inquiry/game-based assessment or data
visualization tools for monitoring ongoing learning).
(e) Supporting the development of digital interoperable credentials
(as defined in this notice) that make transparent the competencies
achieved through remote learning experiences and allow students to
access, control, and share their achievements across a variety of
education and training processes (formal or informal, classroom-based,
remote, or workplace-based). Information on these credentials must be
publicly accessible using linked open data formats to ensure their
transferability and the continuity of learning for students.
(f) Providing high-quality remote learning specifically for one or
more of the following student subgroups:
(i) Students from low-income (as may be defined in the program's
authorizing statute) families;
(ii) Children or students with disabilities (as may be defined in
the program's authorizing statute);
(iii) English learners (as may be defined in the program's
authorizing statute);
(iv) Native American (as may be defined in the program's
authorizing statute) students;
(v) Homeless (as may be defined in the program's authorizing
statute) students ; or
(vi) Students attending schools in rural (as may be defined in the
program's authorizing statute) areas.
The remote learning environment must be accessible to individuals
with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
applicable. The remote learning environment must also provide
appropriate remote learning language assistance services to English
learners.
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 the priority and definitions, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant competition in which the final priority
is used:
Competency-based education (also called proficiency-based or
mastery-based learning) means learning based on knowledge and skills
that are transparent and measurable. Progression is based on
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge)
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.
Interoperable credentials are those credentials built using open
standards so that they are shareable, verifiable, portable, and secure.
The credentials describe the specific achievements, such as credential
type, skill level, or other information, using common, standardized
frameworks so that the data are machine readable, exchangeable, and
actionable across technology systems and, when appropriate, on the web.
When
[[Page 86550]]
credentials are interoperable, a full range of an individual's skills
and achievements, earned through formal and informal learning
experiences or workplace-based training, can be collected together and
verified, regardless of available technology systems, reducing
challenges as individuals transition between education and employment.
These credentials include traditional academic credentials, as well as
micro-, stackable, and other types of short-term credentials earned
through short-term, professional development, or non-credit bearing
educational experiences.
Remote learning means programming where at least part of the
learning occurs away from the physical building in a manner that
addresses a learner's education needs. Remote learning may include
online, hybrid/blended learning, or non-technology-based learning
(e.g., lab kits, project supplies, paper packets).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (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.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866,
and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For FY 2021, any new incremental costs associated
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order
13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income
transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those
regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the priority and
definitions would be used in connection with one or more discretionary
grant programs, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its 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 this final priority and definitions only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory 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 both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's
programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action will not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our
programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with grant
funds. As a result, the priority and definitions will not impose any
particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for
a grant. The benefits of the priority and definitions will outweigh any
associated costs because they will help ensure that the Department's
discretionary grant programs select high-quality applicants to
implement activities that are designed to address critical remote
learning needs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business
Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small
businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a
population below 50,000.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible
entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the
number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive
grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the final
priority and definitions will
[[Page 86551]]
significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing
the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants
from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These final priority and definitions contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0009; the final priority and definitions do not affect the currently
approved data collection.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for the Department's discretionary grant programs.
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.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28820 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P