Under the regulations in “Subpart L-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations provides requirements for authorizing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States and revises existing requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation into the United States, as well as the requirements for their importation, be listed on the internet in APHIS' Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database, or FAVIR ( https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual ). It also provides that, if the Administrator of APHIS determines that any of the phytosanitary measures required for the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable are no longer necessary to reasonably mitigate the plant pest risk posed by the fruit or vegetable, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register making its pest risk documentation and determination available for public comment.

Currently, fresh melon fruit (Cucumis melo L.) from Japan is listed in FAVIR as fruit authorized importation into Hawaii, and fresh cantaloupe fruit (Cucumis melo ssp. melo var. cantalupensis) and honeydew melon ( Cucumis melo ssp. melo var. inodorus ) are authorized importation into Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands from areas of Japan other than Amami, Bonin, Ryukyu, Tokara, and Volcano Islands. To be eligible for importation under the current requirements, the melon fruit must be certified as being hothouse grown on or north of Honshu Island and is subject to inspection at the U.S. port of entry.

APHIS received a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Japan, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, to revise the current import requirements and allow the importation of fresh melon fruits with stems into the entire United States. If we approve the request, the mitigation measures developed would supersede current importation requirements for fresh cantaloupe, honeydew melon, and melon from Japan.

As part of our evaluation of Japan's request, we have prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) to identify pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of fresh melon fruit with stems into the United States from Japan. The PRA identified one quarantine pest—Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV)—as the only quarantine pest that could reasonably be expected to follow the pathway, and that the likelihood of introduction into the United States via fresh melon fruit with stems from Japan is low.

Based on the PRA, a risk management document (RMD) was prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the fresh melon fruit with stems from Japan to mitigate the pest risk.

We have concluded that fresh melon fruit with stems can be safely imported from Japan into the United States using one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in §  319.56-4(b). These measures are summarized below and would also be listed in APHIS' Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database, available at https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual:

• Fresh melon fruit with stems from Japan must be imported as commercial consignments only.

• Each consignment must be inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Japanese NPPO stating that the melon fruit with stems are free of CGMMV.

• Each consignment is subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States.

Each of the pest risk mitigation measures that would be required, along with evidence of their efficacy in removing pests of concern from the pathway, are described in detail in the RMD.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(3), we are announcing the availability of our PRA and RMD for public review and comment. Those documents, as well as a description of the economic considerations associated with the importation of fresh melon fruit with stems under the revised conditions, may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of these documents by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the subject of the analysis you wish to review when requesting copies.

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of fresh melon fruit with stems from Japan in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of our analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will authorize the importation of fresh melon fruit with stems from Japan into the entire United States subject to the revised requirements specified in this notice.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is adding a new system of records, the Integrated Plant Health Information System (IPHIS), USDA/APHIS-23.

IPHIS is an information management system that APHIS uses to access, enter, and view data on plant health events that occur nationwide. IPHIS provides survey data, including locations, target pests, survey sample identification, and diagnostic test results; survey supply orders and inventory management; domestic emergency action notifications; and compliance agreements and inspection records to APHIS plant health personnel as well as cooperators outside the agency. Among other things, this information helps APHIS to prepare for plant pest and disease outbreaks and to monitor such outbreaks and devise effective responses to them; facilitate the export and interstate movement of agricultural products, including regulated articles; and communicate survey results to APHIS and APHIS contractors on a timely basis.

APHIS will share information from the system in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. A full list of routine uses is included in the routine uses section of the document published with this notice.

A report on the new system of records, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as implemented by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-108, was sent to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; the Chairwoman, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives; and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

The non-competitive technology innovation grant funding was authorized by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94) and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260). Eligible State agencies accepting the non-competitive technology innovation grant funding will be required to submit to FNS, via www.grants.gov, a brief application, including streamlined project and budget narratives, describing the State agency's intended use of the funding. State agencies will have three (3) years to expend the awarded funds and be required to submit bi-annual progress reports and quarterly financial reports to FNS. Final progress and financial status reports will be due 120 days after the termination date of the project. The public is invited to provide comment on the proposed use of the non-competitive grant funding approach described in this FR Notice.

In each FYs 2020 and 2021, FNS received $25 million in State funding for the purpose of developing, improving, and maintaining automated information technology systems used to operate and manage all CN Programs ( i.e., the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Child and Adult Care Food Program). In FY 2021, 54 States and territories (69 State agencies) are administering the CN Programs and therefore eligible to receive this funding. Funding will be offered by FNS to all eligible States and territories in an equal distribution based on total available funds for FYs 2020 and 2021 ( i.e., $50 million). In FY 2021, each State will be offered approximately $925,926 for the purposes described above; amounts available in future fiscal years will be subject to the availability of funds and formula adjustments as determined appropriate by FNS. In States where more than one (1) eligible agency administers the CN Programs, the funding will be divided proportionally among those agencies based on the same distribution percentages used in the State Administrative Expense funding formula, as described in Section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act and per Title 7, Part 235 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Allow for public comments;

2. Present RAC orientation information to committee members;

3. Discuss, recommend, and approve a committee chair;

4. Discuss, recommend, and approve a mission statement;

5. Discuss, recommend, and approve meeting rules of operation;

6. Discuss third party facilitation; and

7. Discuss alternative committee members.

The meetings are open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by the Tuesday before each of the scheduled meetings to be scheduled on the agenda for that meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lejon Hamann, RAC Coordinator, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002; or by email to lejon.hamann@usda.gov.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Allow for any public comments;

2. Present RAC orientation information to committee members;

3. Discuss, recommend, and approve a committee chair;

4. Discuss, recommend, and approve a mission statement;

5. Discuss, recommend, and approve meeting rules of operation;

6. Discuss, recommend, and approve third party facilitation; and

7. Discuss Alternative committee members.

The meetings are open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by the Thursday before each of the scheduled meetings to be scheduled on the agenda for that meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lejon Hamann, RAC Coordinator, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002; or by email to lejon.hamann@usda.gov.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the public may listen to this discussion through the above call in number, or register through the above online registration link. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received by the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Corrine Sanders at csanders@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Mississippi Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email address.

On November 3, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order  1 on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico for the POR. 2 On November 30, 2020, Commerce received a timely request from domestic interested party Nucor Tubular Products Inc. (Nucor Tubular), in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), to conduct an administrative review of the Order for 36 companies. 3 No other party requested an administrative review.

On January 6, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation with respect to 36 companies. 4 On April 6, 2021, Nucor Tubular timely withdrew its request for an administrative review for all 36 companies for which it had requested a review. 5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this instance, the party that requested an administrative review withdrew its request for review for all companies by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of this order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the Order covering the POR, in its entirety.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On October 22, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2016-2017 AD administrative review of certain activated carbon from China. 1 Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 U.S. dollars (USD)/kilogram (kg) for Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Datong Juqiang) and a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.45 USD/kg for Carbon Activated, and assigned GHC a separate rate of 0.45 USD/kg. 2

After correcting ministerial errors contained in the Final Results, on November 19, 2018, Commerce published the Amended Final Results. Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 USD/kg for Datong Juqiang and a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.23 USD/kg for Carbon Activated, and assigned GHC a separate rate of 0.23 USD/kg. 3

Carbon Activated, Datong Juqiang, and GHC (collectively, the Respondents) appealed Commerce's Final Results/Amended Final Results. On May 13, 2020, the CIT remanded the Final Results/Amended Final Results to Commerce, and directed Commerce to reconsider Commerce's determination to include the imports from France and Japan in the Thai import data used to value the mandatory respondents' ( i.e., Carbon Activated and Datong Juqiang) carbonized material input, and also to reconsider Commerce's adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios. 4

In its first remand redetermination, issued in August 2020, Commerce (1) reconsidered and further explained Commerce's determination to include the French and Japanese import data in the Thai import data used to value carbonized material in the Final Results ; and (2) reconsidered and further explained Commerce's allocation of certain line items in valuing financial ratios using the 2016 financial statements from the Romanian company, Romcarbon SA (Romcarbon). 5 Specifically, Commerce excluded the imports from Japan from the Thai import data and continued to include the imports from France. In addition, Commerce made necessary changes in the allocation of certain line items in calculating the financial ratios using the 2016 financial statements from Romcarbon. Accordingly, Commerce made changes to the margin calculations for the mandatory respondents and revised the separate rate for GHC. 6 On December 21, 2020, the CIT remanded for a second time, and directed Commerce to again reconsider Commerce's inclusion of the imports from France in the Thai surrogate value for carbonized material. 7

In its second remand redetermination, issued in March 2021, Commerce reconsidered its determination to include the imports from France in the Thai import data used to value carbonized material and, under protest, excluded the imports from France from the Thai surrogate value for carbonized material. Accordingly, Commerce made necessary changes to the margin calculations for the mandatory respondents and revised the separate rate for GHC. 8 The CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 9

In its decision in Timken, 10 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 11 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(a) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's May 11, 2021 judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results/Amended Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.

Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce amends the Final Results and Amended Final Results with respect to Carbon Activated and GHC as follows:  12

The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.

Status: The June 11, 2021 meeting will be open to public participation with a 5-minute public comment period at 11:55 a.m. EDT. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three minutes. Written comments for the June 11, 2021 meeting should be received by the SAB Executive Director's Office by June 04, 2021 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after these dates will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.

Special Accommodations: This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to the Executive Director no later than 12 p.m. on June 04, 2021.

Matters To Be Considered: The meeting on June 11, 2021 will consider (1) Revisions to the Environmental Information Services Working Group's Statement on Ongoing National Weather Service Data Dissemination Challenges; and (2) SAB Priorities for Weather Research Study update. The full agenda will be published on the SAB website. Meeting materials, including work products, will also be available on the SAB website: http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings.aspx.

This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) operates within the Office of Response and Restoration as part of NOAA's National Ocean Service. The MDP supports national and international efforts to research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of marine debris. The MDP is the lead program within NOAA that coordinates and supports activities, both within the bureau and with other federal agencies, to address marine debris and its impacts. In addition to inter-agency coordination, the MDP uses partnerships with state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry to investigate and solve the problems that stem from marine debris through research, prevention, and reduction activities, in order to protect and conserve our nation's marine environment and ensure navigation safety.

The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq. ) as amended by the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-213, Title VI, Sec. 603, 126 Stat. 1576, December 20, 2012), and the Save our Seas Act and Save our Seas 2.0 Act in 2018 and 2020, respectively. The Save our Seas 2.0 Act was signed into law on December 18, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-224). These authorities outline a variety of different program components for the MDP to undertake in addressing the marine debris issue: Marine debris mapping, identification, impact assessment, research, removal, and prevention. To address these components, the Marine Debris Act and the subsequent amendments listed above authorize the MDP to establish several competitive grant programs on marine debris research, prevention, and removal to support non-federal entities throughout the coastal United States and territories with financial and technical assistance. Other supplemental appropriations, such as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-113, Title IX), have provided authority to the MDP for marine debris work in dealing with hurricane recovery and international transboundary marine debris issues as well.

The terms and conditions of the financial assistance awards made through these grant programs require regular progress reporting and communication of project accomplishments to MDP. Progress reports contain information related to, among other things, the overall short and long-term goals of the project, project methods and monitoring techniques, actual accomplishments (such as tons of debris removed from an ecosystem, numbers of volunteers participating in a cleanup project, the number of educational interactions with the public, etc.), status of approved activities, challenges or potential roadblocks to future progress, lessons learned, and budget expenditures. This information collection enables MDP to monitor and evaluate the activities supported by federal funds to ensure accountability to the public and to ensure that funds are used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which they were appropriated. It also ensures that reported information is standardized in such a way that allows it to be meaningfully synthesized across a diverse set of projects and project types. MDP uses the information collected in a variety of ways to communicate with federal and non-federal partners and stakeholders on individual project and general program accomplishments.

Respondents to this collection may choose to submit electronically or in paper format.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0718.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of an approved information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, state, local or tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 70.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 Hours (semi-annually).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq. ) as amended by the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-213, Title VI, Sec. 603, 126 Stat. 1576, December 20, 2012); Save our Seas Act and Save our Seas 2.0 Act (Pub. L. 116-224).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The purpose of the SSC Salmon Subcommittee meeting will be to review the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP and COP 15 to evaluate the SSC's role in future methodology reviews of salmon run forecast methodologies and other analyses used by the Pacific Council in management decision-making. The SSC will seek clarification from the Pacific Council at its June 2021 meeting regarding their role in reviewing salmon run forecasts. The SSC Salmon Subcommittee may also discuss BSIA determinations for salmon decision-making that could inform SSC recommendations on the regional BSIA framework which are scheduled to be presented at the September 2021 Pacific Council meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412), at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.)

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Collins, (302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Scientific and Statistical Committee will meet to receive the report of the SSC Social Science Subpanel review of the social and economic impact analyses in Multispecies (Groundfish) Framework Adjustment 59 and Scallop Framework Adjustment 32 if available. They will discuss possible next steps for modifying Groundfish ABC control rules in response to the findings in the report, Evaluation of Alternative Harvest Control Rules for New England Groundfish. They also plan to comment on the annual update to Council research priorities. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary, documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion in the Stock ID webinars are as follows:

1. Participants will use review genetic studies, growth patterns, existing stock definitions, prior SEDAR stock ID recommendations, and any other relevant information on scamp stock structure.

2. Participants will make recommendations on biological stock structure and define the unit stock or stocks to be addressed through this assessment.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

The agenda for the following three in-person hearings and two webinars are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on the purpose and need of the amendment. The Council is currently considering reallocating red grouper between commercial and recreational sectors in the Gulf, as well as modifying the overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and annual catch limits (ACLs). The Council is also currently considering modifying the buffer between the ACL and annual catch target (ACT) for each sector. Council staff will also provide an overview of the actions and alternatives considered in the amendment including the Council's preferred alternatives.

Staff and a Council member will be available to answer any questions, and the public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the amendment and other related testimony.

The schedule is as follows:

Monday, June 7, 2021; The City Centre at City Hall, 300 Municipal Dr., Madeira Beach, FL 33708; (727) 391-9951.

Tuesday, June 8, 2021; Crowne Plaza Ft. Myers at Bell Tower Shops, 13051 Bell Tower Drive, Ft. Myers, FL 33907; telephone: (239) 482-2900.

Thursday, June 10, 2021 via webinar. Visit www.gulfcouncil.org website and click on the “meetings” tab for registration information. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Monday, June 14, 2021; Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 U.S. Hwy. 231, Panama City, FL 32405; telephone: (850) 392-1093.

Wednesday, June 16, 2021; via webinar. Visit www.gulfcouncil.org website and click on the “meetings” tab for registration information. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES ), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

On 1/15/201 and 2/5/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:

On 4/16/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following product(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

Title of Collection: Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0001.

Type of Review: Revision of a previously approved information collection.

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 615.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 501.

Abstract: This collection incorporates two information collections of credit card data by the Bureau that used to be collected under separate OMB Control Numbers. OMB Control No. 3170-0052 is being incorporated into OMB Control Number 3170-0001. Each collects different forms of credit card data from credit card issuers, as required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. and implementing regulations:

• Agreements between the issuer and a consumer under a credit card account for an open-end consumer credit plan; and

• any college credit card agreements to which the issuer is a party and certain additional information regarding those agreements.

The data collections enable the Bureau to provide Congress and the public with a centralized and searchable repository for consumer and college credit card agreements and information regarding the arrangements between financial institutions and institutions of higher education.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the mandatory collection of information, pursuant to statute, is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Fort Irwin consists of approximately 753,537 acres in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County in southern California. The NTC at Fort Irwin provides combined arms training for maneuver Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), including the Army's Stryker BCTs and Armored BCTs. Training also is provided for joint military branches (Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force), Army Reserve, National Guard units, and regular and transitional law enforcement units, as well as home station units. Because of its size, design, and terrain, Fort Irwin is one of the few places in the world where brigade-size units (5,000+ soldiers) can test their combat readiness.

Fort Irwin's mission is to train Rotational Training Units (RTUs) and joint, interagency, and multinational partners to fight and win in a complex world, while taking care of soldiers, civilians, and family members. To achieve this mission, NTC designs and executes training exercises that prepare brigade-level units for operational deployments. Up to 12 BCT rotations are executed per year.

The Draft EIS analyzes the potential effects from the modernization of training, the improvement of training infrastructure, and the extension of the existing land withdrawal. Training changes are required to support new training doctrine that focuses on large Army formations operating against near-peer adversaries. To reflect weapon systems capabilities and evolving mission requirements, improvements need to be made to training infrastructure.

Approximately 110,000 acres of Fort Irwin training land areas are public land that has been withdrawn from all types of appropriation and reserved for military purposes under Public Law 107-107 (2001). This public land withdrawal terminates on December 28, 2026. The Army has identified a continuing military need for the land beyond the termination date and intends to request that the U.S. Congress extend the withdrawal for at least 25 years, or in the alternative, for an indefinite period until there is no longer a military need for the land. Upon a separate application by the Army, the Bureau of Land Management will file in the Federal Register a separate notice of withdrawal extension application. The Final EIS will be submitted to the U.S. Congress as an LEIS to support the legislative request for extension of this withdrawal and reservation.

The Draft EIS analyzes a range of Proposed Mission Change Alternatives, a No Mission Change Alternative, a Withdrawal Extension Alternative, and a No Withdrawal Extension Alternative. The Mission Change Alternatives consist of different magnitudes of changes in training and training infrastructure; for Fort Irwin's Western Training Area, the EIS considers a range of medium-to-heavy intensity training alternatives. The No Mission Change Alternative would continue military training at the current level and would result in no modernization of training or improvement of training infrastructure on Fort Irwin. The Army is the decision maker regarding the Mission Change Alternatives.

The Withdrawal Extension Alternative would extend the current withdrawal for 25 years or indefinitely until there is no longer a military need for the land. The No Withdrawal Extension Alternative would result in portions of the installation returning to public domain. The U.S. Congress is the decision maker regarding the Withdrawal Alternatives.

All military activities under consideration would be conducted within the existing boundaries of the installation. The Draft EIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental and socioeconomic effects of these alternatives. Adverse effects would be minimized to the extent possible through the implementation of specified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

The Army Preferred Alternative has not been determined at this time and will be specified the Final EIS.

The resource areas analyzed in the DEIS include air quality, transportation, noise, water resources, geological resources, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, utilities, land use, recreation, health and safety, and hazardous materials and waste. The effects on these resources may occur from changing the scope or magnitude of military training activities within the current Fort Irwin boundaries. The analysis also considers the potential for cumulative environmental effects.

Both the Mission Change Alternatives and the No Mission Change Alternative would result in unavoidable environmental effects. Under the No Mission Change Alternative, there would be less than significant effects on all evaluated resources. The Mission Change Alternatives would result in minor-to-moderate adverse effects that would be in addition to the effects of the No Mission Change Alternative; however, none of the effects would be significant.

The environmental effects from the Withdrawal Extension Alternative would be comparable to those discussed for the Mission Change Alternatives. While the effects of the No Withdrawal Extension Alternative are uncertain, because of the unknown future uses of these areas if Army training is not conducted, it is expected that the No Withdrawal Extension Alternative would result in negligible effects on resources compared to the Withdrawal Extension Alternative.

Federal, state, and local agencies, Native Americans, Native American organizations, and the public are invited to be involved in the public comment process for the Draft EIS by submitting written comments. Written comments must be received or postmarked by July 6, 2021. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for social distancing and avoiding large public gatherings, the Army will not hold in-person public comment meetings for this action. All government agencies, special interest groups, and individuals are invited to participate in the Army's decision-making process for this Proposed Action. [A 45-day public review period for the Draft EIS will begin after publication in the Federal Register ]. Information on the Draft EIS will be provided online through a virtual town hall, and the public meeting will be hosted by telephone. Interested parties are invited to attend two public telephone meetings (date to be determined, and included in this notice, based on scheduled Federal Register publication date). The first telephone meeting will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time and the second telephone meeting will be held from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. The dial-in number for both telephone meetings is 888-251-2949 or 215-861-0694, with a passcode of 6920265# for the 10:00 a.m. meeting and 6091656# for the 4:00 p.m. meeting. Persons unable to access the virtual town hall can submit a request for meeting materials to: usarmy.jbsa.aec.nepa@mail.mil. Specific details, including date, of the telephone meetings will be announced in local media and on the Fort Irwin EIS website: https://aec.army.mil/index.php/irwin-nepa-meeting.

The Draft EIS will be posted on the website and, for those who do not have ready access to a computer or the internet, will be made available upon request by mail. Inquiries, requests for Draft EIS-related materials, and comments regarding the Draft EIS may be submitted by mail to the NEPA Planner, Fort Irwin Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, Building 602, Fifth Street, Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5085. Mail must be postmarked no later than June 7, 2021, to allow the meeting materials to be sent by the U.S. Postal Service. An electronic copy of the Draft EIS will be made available for view online or download from the Fort Irwin EIS website: https://aec.army.mil/index.php/irwin-nepa-meeting. Notification of the public telephone meetings will be announced in the local news media and on the Fort Irwin EIS website.

To ensure the Army has sufficient time to consider public input in the preparation of the Final EIS, written comments must be submitted on the website or mailed to the address listed previously no later than July 6, 2021.

The Department of the Army will consider all comments received on the Draft EIS when preparing the Final EIS and will announce the availability of the Final EIS. The Bureau of Land Management will organize public participation following the publication of its notice of application for extension of the public land withdrawal.

a. Purpose and need: The purpose of the LOSOM is to develop a new regulation schedule for Lake Okeechobee that accounts for the completion of the Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) rehabilitation and considers completed or near complete Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) projects, while balancing the congressionally authorized purposes of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project to include flood control, water supply for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses, regional groundwater control and prevention of saltwater intrusion, enhancement of fish and wildlife, and recreation. The LOSOM aims to develop a new regulation schedule that will improve Lake Okeechobee ecological integrity and the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water moving in the Northern Estuaries, Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), and Everglades National Park (ENP), while balancing the congressionally-authorized project purposes. The study will not propose water quality improvement features and will not propose new infrastructure beyond evaluation of already authorized projects.

b. Preliminary alternatives & proposed action: Since the development of structural works around Lake Okeechobee, the Lake Okeechobee water levels and the distribution, timing, and, magnitude of releases out of the lake have been determined by the active regulation schedule. The last Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule review, called the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS 2008), was completed in 2008 to improve Lake and Northern Estuary ecology and to reduce flood risk during rehabilitation of HHD. The new regulation schedule, LOSOM, is being developed to incorporate HHD rehabilitation and additional relevant South Florida Ecosystem Restoration projects since the LORS 2008 schedule update. Additionally, focused objectives, based on updated conditions, new science, and lessons learned since LORS 2008 was approved, have been developed to better meet the congressionally authorized purposes, which will incorporate critical flexibility into Lake Okeechobee operations. The balanced array of alternatives will include different methodologies to balance the congressionally-authorized project purposes and the stated goals and objectives of LOSOM to consider incorporating the following concepts: (1) Increasing flow south with an emphasis on dry season flows, (2) Reducing flows to the St. Lucie Estuary through S-308, (3) Reducing high and low flow events to the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary, (4) Addressing algal bloom risk, (5) Improving water supply, and (6) Managing lake stages for enhancing ecology. After the evaluation of the balanced array of alternatives, a Tentatively Selected Plan will be chosen and optimized during a third round of modeling.

c. Brief summary of expected impacts: The scope of LOSOM will be limited to operational criteria for structures that manage releases from Lake Okeechobee, including releases to the east towards the St. Lucie Estuary via S-308 and S-80, releases towards the west towards the Caloosahatchee Estuary via S-77, S-78, and S-79, and south via S-351, S-352, S-354, and S-271. At these structures, LOSOM will define the upper and lower limits of flow magnitudes, the duration and timing of flows, and lake levels or ranges of levels at different times of year ( e.g., wet and dry seasons). In addition, it will include the types of information used to help inform water management release decisions that include, but are not limited to, the following: Short and long term meteorological patterns, environmental conditions in Lake Okeechobee, Northern Estuaries, and WCAs, fish and wildlife species, and water supply needs and well fields. The areas of direct impact include Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary, St. Lucie Estuary, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), and WCAs. Areas of indirect impact include the Lower East Coast Service Area (LECSA), ENP, and other areas south of Lake Okeechobee that may be impacted by changing freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee. Expected impacts may include the following: Changing salinity levels in the Northern Estuaries (either positively or negatively depending on flows), changing water levels in the EAA and WCAs, potential increases or decreases in algal bloom risk in Lake Okeechobee and the Northern Estuaries, increases or decreases in water supply and available water for navigation and recreation, and potential impacts to seagrasses, oysters, and endangered and threatened species. Potential indirect impacts include increasing or decreasing freshwater flow amounts being sent to ENP, LECSA, and other areas south of Lake Okeechobee. Other potential impacts may be determined as the in-depth analysis of alternatives is conducted under NEPA.

d. Anticipated permits/authorizations: All alternative plans will be reviewed under provisions of appropriate laws and regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. The final array of alternative plans will consider operations that balance multiple project objectives and evaluate their effects on the human environment in the NEPA document. As an operational plan, it is not expected that permits under the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act will be required.

e. Scoping process and meetings: The planning process for LOSOM requires extensive coordination with the public and federal, tribal, state, and local resource management and regulatory agencies. An interagency project team was formed and is meeting regularly throughout the study, to provide opportunities for federal, tribal, state, and local agencies to comment on planning assumptions, evaluation tools and methods, and alternative plans. Initial public and agency comments received in response to a NEPA scoping letter dated January 29, 2019, were supportive of the project. Comments received from the NEPA scoping letter focused on the planning and NEPA process, Lake Okeechobee water levels and release volumes, operational considerations to be included in LOSOM, and links to other CERP projects and planning constraints. Concerns centered on potential impacts to water supply, flood protection, public health and safety, and water quality, including harmful algal blooms. Potential impacts to ecosystems, fish, and wildlife resources, and known and unknown cultural resources were also of concern. Scoping comments were accepted through April 21, 2019.

f. Request for alternatives, information, and analyses: The LOSOM team is currently developing a balanced array of alternatives. These alternatives are expected to be modeled in early to mid-May 2021. The alternatives were presented to the Project Delivery Team (PDT) during the May 7, 2021 PDT meeting, where members of the public were invited to attend. More information on meeting times, dates, and topics can be found at https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/LOSOM/.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Application for Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0734.

Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State and Local Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 560.

Abstract: This is a request to collect critical information for the Application for Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding, the instrument through which local educational agencies (LEAs) apply for flexibility to consolidate eligible Federal funds and State and local education funding based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students. This program allows LEAs to consolidate funds under the following Federal education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA); Title I, Part A Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies; Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children; Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 Local Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk; Title II Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-quality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders; Title III Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students; Title IV, Part A Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants; Title VI, Part B Rural Education Initiative. On December 10, 2015, the programs above were reauthorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding under section 1501 of the ESEA allows the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to offer an LEA the opportunity to consolidate funds under the above-listed programs to support the LEA in creating a single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students, with attendant flexibility in using those funds.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

Priorities: This competition includes two absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priorities are from allowable activities specified in or otherwise authorized in sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)). The competitive preference priority is from the Department's Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640) (Administrative Priorities).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet either Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2. The Department may fund out of rank order high-quality applications to ensure that at least three projects are funded under each absolute priority. Applicants may apply under both absolute priorities but must submit separate applications. Applicants must clearly identify if the proposed project addresses Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Identification, Screening, Referral, and Tracking Systems for Infants and Toddlers .

Background:

Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for children with disabilities and their families have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based practices, 1 including interventions and implementation strategies ( i.e., core model components), that research suggests will improve outcomes for children, families, personnel, 2 administrators, or systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and sustained in real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.

IDEA Part C requires States to have a comprehensive child find system in place so that all infants and toddlers with disabilities in the State who are eligible for early intervention services are identified, located, and evaluated (34 CFR 303.302). The comprehensive child find system must be coordinated with other State agencies who serve young children and must focus on early identification of infants and toddlers with disabilities and those at risk for developmental delays. And it must include a system for making referrals to appropriately identify infants and toddlers with disabilities who need early intervention services. There is a strong evidence base demonstrating that the earlier infants and toddlers with, and at risk for, disabilities are identified and served, the better the outcomes for the child, the family, and the educational and social systems that serve them (McCoy et al., 2017). Missed opportunities within the child find system can have short- and long-term effects. Infants and toddlers who are not expeditiously identified may not receive services critical to helping meet developmental milestones in a timely manner, resulting in a delay or absence of foundational skills needed for later academic success.

While States receiving funding under IDEA Part C are required to have a comprehensive child find system in place, data suggest that these systems are not being implemented as effectively or equitably as they should be. Recent IDEA section 618 (20 U.S.C. 1418) child count data for IDEA Part C showed that nationally 3.48 percent of infants and toddlers are receiving services under IDEA, but the percentage of infants and toddlers served varies across States from 0.85 percent to 10.05 percent. Early childhood professionals argue that the percentage of infants and toddlers served by some States under IDEA Part C is too low, considering that the prevalence of developmental delays has been estimated at 13 percent for young children (Rosenberg et al., 2008) and that approximately 14 percent of school-age children with disabilities are served under IDEA Part B.

Many developmental concerns, delays, and disabilities can be identified early, from birth through age two. However, when delays and disabilities are identified at later ages, interventions can become less effective and more costly over time. Studies show, for example, that despite signs often being present by 12-18 months of age, the typical age of diagnosis for autism spectrum disorder is 4 years of age (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). In addition, there are groups of children that are less likely to be identified, located, and evaluated for IDEA Part C. The IDEA section 618 child count data collection show that American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Black or African American infants and toddlers are less likely than those in other racial/ethnic groups to be identified and served under IDEA Part C. Results of a study by Feinberg et al. (2011) showed that at 24 months of age, Black children were 5 times less likely to receive IDEA Part C services than white children.

Of particular concern are infants and toddlers who reside in underserved communities and may lack access to quality child care and experience barriers to accessing routine medical care, which can negatively impact developmental screening and referrals, as screenings are typically conducted by pediatricians and in early childhood programs. Infants and toddlers especially vulnerable to developmental or behavioral issues are those negatively affected by the social determinants of health and other adverse childhood or family experiences such as poverty, racism, and toxic stress, including exposure to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol use, and foster care (Lipkin & Macias, 2020). There are data that suggest, however, that more vulnerable children, such as those in the child welfare system or in Early Head Start, are underrepresented in receiving IDEA Part C services (Rosenberg et al., 2013). The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has added to the difficulty of implementing an effective and equitable comprehensive child find system. State IDEA Part C early intervention systems reported a significant drop in the number of infants and toddlers being referred to their programs (IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association, 2021).

For State IDEA Part C systems to meet the mandate for comprehensive child find systems, they need to engage in evidence-based approaches and models to equitably identify, locate, and evaluate infants and toddlers with disabilities. Components of evidence-based models include robust identification, developmental screening, referral, and tracking systems. Such models should include systematic developmental screening with standardized screeners for all young children at critical ages. Screening results should be shared across service sectors, and families referred to, and supported in following up with, other systems if there is a developmental concern. Families should be monitored to make sure their infants and toddlers are getting the services and supports that they need to thrive. Evidence-based models should also include State and local infrastructure to support collaboration across agencies and to examine their data to understand, based on the eligibility criteria for IDEA Part C, how many infants and toddlers should be enrolled in services versus are enrolled and which groups of underserved infants and toddlers should be targeted for more focused outreach to address equity concerns.

While evidence-based components of child find systems exist within IDEA Part C systems, model demonstration projects are needed to further refine the key components of child find systems and demonstrate how to bring together identification, screening, referral, and tracking practices to serve infants and toddlers with disabilities and those at risk for developmental delays more effectively and equitably. These model demonstration projects will also identify specific implementation strategies and the system supports needed to implement the models in high-need communities to address especially vulnerable infants and toddlers affected by the social determinants of health and adverse childhood or family experiences. These system supports will include how aspects of the models can be delivered remotely, creating efficiencies, and building community capacity to implement a comprehensive child find system.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate evidence-based model demonstration projects. The models must implement identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems across health, early care and education, and social service systems that serve and support infants and toddlers and their families within a local community.

The models must address the infrastructure ( e.g., implementation teams, data systems) and ongoing supports needed to foster the development, implementation, and evaluation of identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems that effectively serve infants and toddlers with, and at risk for, disabilities and their families within a local community.

The models must demonstrate methods for identifying evidence-based strategies, to be delivered both in-person and remotely, for equitably identifying, screening, referring, and tracking infants and toddlers with, and those at risk for, disabilities within local communities to ensure a focused outreach to typically underserved families and especially vulnerable infants and toddlers affected by social determinants of health and adverse childhood or family experiences.

The models must capture information about challenges to implementation and determine what system supports may assist in meeting those challenges. Additionally, the models must use State and local data, including identification, referral, and tracking data, to provide information about how agencies within a community are collaborating to implement the model and how the implementation is impacting child find services under IDEA Part C. Specifically, the models must use data to examine how many infants and toddlers should be enrolled in IDEA Part C services versus are enrolled within a community. The models must also examine their impact on how families with infants and toddlers with disabilities are able to access other service delivery systems. The model demonstration projects must assess how models can—

• Improve the capacity of local systems to use evidence-based practices, both in-person and remotely, to equitably identify, screen, refer, and track infants and toddlers with, and at risk for, disabilities;

• Improve the infrastructure of local systems to increase equitable and appropriate referrals to Part C at younger ages;

• Improve collaboration across local programs and systems so that infants and toddlers with, or at risk for, disabilities are connected to appropriate high-quality services that result in improved outcomes for children and families within the community; and

• Improve the understanding of how local systems reduce barriers to, and support, the effective and equitable implementation of aspects of the model.

Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

(a) The model's core intervention components must include—

(1) Identification, screening, referral, and tracking practices that are evidence-based;

(2) Procedures to accurately record the number of infants and toddlers with disabilities that are identified, screened, referred, and tracked to compare to the number that should be identified, screened, referred, and tracked based on State and local data for the community being served;

(3) Procedures for building collaboration and agreements between health, early care and education, and social service systems that serve and support infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families within the community;

(4) Methods for implementing equitable identification, screening, referral, and tracking practices across systems;

(5) Strategies for identifying typically underserved families and vulnerable infants and toddlers such as those impacted by social determinants of health and other adverse childhood or family experiences such as poverty, racism, and toxic stress, including exposure to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol use, or homelessness; those who are part of the child welfare system or a ward of the State; and those who do not have a medical home or access to child care;

(6) Methods for measuring the impact of the model, including fidelity measures on the implementation of the practices, data on services being accessed by infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, data on timeliness and appropriateness of referrals to IDEA Part C, data on the demographics of infants and toddlers referred to IDEA Part C; and child and family outcomes in the community;  3

(7) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of system administrators, personnel, and families' satisfaction with the model components, processes, and outcomes;

(8) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing fidelity measures on the implementation of the practices, the data collected on which infants and toddlers and their families are accessing services and which services they are or are not accessing, and child and family outcomes in the community; and

(9) Procedures to share data across systems within the community and at the State level so that the data can be used to remove barriers to, and support the implementation and sustainability of, the identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems.

(b) The model's core implementation components must include—

(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting  4 and recruiting sites, which include the health, early care and education, and social service systems in a local community, including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site participants. 5 Applicants are encouraged to choose sites in a variety of communities ( e.g., urban, rural, suburban) that are comprised of typically underserved families and vulnerable populations of infants and toddlers ( e.g., those impacted by social determinants of health and other adverse childhood or family experiences such as poverty, racism, and toxic stress, including exposure to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol use, or homelessness; those who are part of the child welfare system or a ward of the State; and those who do not have a medical home or access to child care);

(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;

(3) A professional development component that includes a strategy to work with administrators and personnel, to enable sites to implement the identification, screening, referral, and tracking model with fidelity; and

(4) Measures of the results of the professional development required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include—

(1) Procedures and materials that permit current and future site-based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site;  6

(2) Guidelines and procedures to—

(i) Help administrators support equitable identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems;

(ii) Determine the identification, screening, referral, and tracking practices that can be delivered remotely;

(iii) Establish collaboration agreements among agencies and systems;

(iv) Collect and analyze data to identify typically underserved families and vulnerable populations of infants and toddlers within communities and examine IDEA Part C child find practices;

(v) Provide a continuum of child and family support services across health, early care and education, and social service systems; and

(vi) Collect data regarding the connection among identification, screening, referral, and tracking strategies used, the fidelity of the implementation of practices, the services delivered, and child and family outcomes; and communicate regularly about the data at the local and State levels;

(3) Strategies for the grantee to develop a manual, toolkit, and other resources for disseminating information on the final version of the model by the end of the grant period, such as developing easily accessible online products that specify model core components critical for improving outcomes, professional development materials, fidelity measures, key outcomes from the model ( e.g., increases in the equity of referrals), and implementation procedures for disseminating the model and its components; and

(4) Strategies for the grantee to assist State and local health, early care and education, and social service systems within the State to scale up a model and its components.

To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the requirements contained in this priority.

Application Requirements:

An applicant must include in its application—

(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed evidence-based model or its implementation components and the proposed processes to improve equitable identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems within a site;

(b) A logic model  7 that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph (a) under the heading Priority ) of the proposed model demonstration project.

Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;

(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project ( i.e., the project design) to develop equitable identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:

(1) Each of the identification, screening, referral, and tracking system components.

(2) The existing and proposed measures of fidelity of the implementation of evidence-based identification, screening, referral, and tracking practices; services being accessed by infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families; timeliness and appropriateness of referrals to IDEA Part C; demographics of infants and toddlers referred to IDEA Part C; and child and family outcomes in the community, as well as social validity measures. The measures must be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.

(3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures must be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description must include—

(i) Demographics ( e.g., race and ethnicity, social economic status, primary home language) of the families of infants and toddlers with disabilities, including the health, early care and education, and social services that they receive, who live within the local communities that have been identified and successfully recruited as implementation sites for the purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority ;

Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (f)(1) of these application requirements; and

(ii) The lag site implementation design for implementation consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading Priority.

(4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c) under the heading Priority.

(5) The cost of the fully developed model and its implementation, including the resources used by the model as well as their actual or estimated costs. 8

(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed and complete description must include—

(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's logic model, that includes evaluation questions, sources of data, a timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show how the outcome data ( e.g., child, family, or systems measures, social validity) and implementation data ( e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of professional development activities) will be used separately or in combination to improve the project during the performance period. These data will be reported in the annual performance report (APR). The plan also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and

(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect and analyze data on changes to child, family, or system outcomes over time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child, family, or system outcome and implementation data collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model.

(e) A plan to disseminate the results of the project, including the findings that show the model had a beneficial effect on outcomes, the final version of the implemented model, and its associated products (such as curricula, professional development materials, implementation procedures, measures and assessments, guides, and toolkits). The dissemination plan must include the audiences who would most likely benefit from implementing the model and detailed strategies for reaching these audiences. In disseminating the results of the project, grantees must, at a minimum: Collaborate with OSEP-funded TA centers, publish in research and practitioner journals, and present at meetings of professional associations. Grantees may also consider collaborating with personnel preparation programs and OSEP-funded State Personnel Development Grant projects; providing webinars, training sessions, or workshops to State and local agencies; and engaging with other federally funded TA centers, such as Head Start Training and Technical Assistance Centers, research and development centers, research networks, or Regional Educational Laboratories.

(f) A budget for attendance at the following:

(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award.

(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or virtually, occurring twice during the project performance period.

(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, or virtually.

Other Project Activities:

To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a minimum, must—

(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other Department-funded projects, consistent with paragraph (e) under the heading Application Requirements;

(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded under this priority;

(c) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection and the process of implementing the model in the sites.

Note: The following website provides more information about implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

(d) If the project maintains a website, include relevant information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration activities and ensure that the website meets government- or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

(e) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website.

The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48 months to disseminate the results of the project if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as part of the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to identifying the system supports needed to implement the model. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month period. The fifth year must be budgeted at $100,000. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including—

(a) The recommendations of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the first half of the fourth year of the project period;

(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed to changed practices and improved outcomes for children with disabilities.

Absolute Priority 2: Model Demonstration Projects To Enhance Social, Emotional, and Mental Health Services and Supports for Middle or High School Youth With and at Risk for Disabilities.

Background:

Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for children with disabilities and their families have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based practices, 9 including interventions and implementation strategies ( i.e., core model components), that research suggests will improve outcomes for children, families, personnel, 10 administrators, or systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and sustained in real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.

Research shows that by seventh grade, 40 percent of students will have experienced a mental health issue such as anxiety or depression and that, each year, 13 to 20 percent of school-aged children and youth meet the criteria for a mental health disorder (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Suicide is the second leading cause of death among persons aged 10-34 and health data show that the percentages of adolescents not receiving preventive care such as well-child checkups are higher for those ages 16-17 compared with those in younger age groups (Hedegaard et al., 2020; Black et al., 2016). For the purposes of this priority, mental health includes emotional, psychological, and social well-being. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mental health effects how we think, feel, and act and helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make healthy choices (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). In schools, we prioritize three critical and inter-related components of mental health support: Social (how we relate to others), emotional (how we feel), and behavioral (how we act) support to promote overall student well-being positive learning outcomes (Chafouleas, 2020).

Students with disabilities are at a higher risk of experiencing a mental health disorder than their non-disabled peers. For example, 60 percent of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) had at least one other mental, emotional, or behavioral disorder (Danielson et al., 2018). Students with mental health disorders are more likely to exhibit disruptive behavior, have chronic absences, have poor academic performance, and drop out of school (Anderson & Cardoza, 2016). Students with both a disability and a mental health disorder have increased risk of negative post-school outcomes such as a reduced quality of life, unemployment, underemployment, and possibly prison as well (Darney et al., 2013; Hawton et al., 2012). Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the mental health of school-aged children and youth, with 45 percent of parents with children in grades kindergarten through 12 indicating that their child's mental health is suffering (Calderon, 2020). Even though there is a growing number of school-aged children exhibiting mental health concerns, it is estimated that nearly 60 percent receive no treatment, which can be attributed to lack of access and the stigma that comes with mental health issues (National Association of School Psychologists, 2016).

Although the primary purpose of schools is to deliver an effective academic education, several studies of children's mental health have acknowledged that American schools have become a primary source of mental health services for youth. There is a strong evidence base demonstrating that integrating school-based mental health services and supports can improve academic, social and emotional, and behavioral outcomes for students with and at risk for disabilities (Barry et al., 2013; Hoover et al., 2019; Kern et al., 2017; Kutash et al., 2011).

Despite many children receiving mental health services from their school, there is a limited body of research identifying how to effectively provide those services within the school context. Approximately 20 percent of children have documented mental health needs that require intervention; however, only one-third of these children receive any services. Experts attribute the gap between need and treatment to the shortage of mental health providers and the increase in the number of children requiring services. This gap is significantly greater in rural communities where there is a lack of child psychologists and school or community providers trained in mental health awareness and intervention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Gaps in access to mental health services are also prevalent in high-risk populations, including students with disabilities; students of color; students in foster care; military-connected youth; youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+); youth involved with the juvenile justice system; and youth who are homeless or abusing controlled substances. Although mental health services are provided in schools, models are needed that demonstrate interagency coordination ( i.e., coordination among school-based services and community-based resources, such as community mental health and primary care providers) and coordinated service delivery  11 of evidence-based school mental health services and supports, including prevention, screening, data-based decision making, and effective interventions that can be implemented through approaches ( e.g., schoolwide, 12 targeted, 13 and intensive  14 ) that can be scaled up to address the needs of high-risk youth, with and at risk for disabilities, including those in rural communities to improve educational, behavioral, and mental health outcomes. The current system is ineffective and inefficient for many students, families, and staff, with notable problems before the pandemic and exacerbated as schools work to respond and recover from COVID impacts. To address the current service delivery limitations, there is increasing recognition of the need to move away from services and supports characterized by ad-hoc involvement of mental health system staff in schools toward approaches that clearly integrate education and mental health systems. For example, within middle schools and high schools, services and supports are often fragmentated because those providing direct services to students, including teachers, counselors, school psychologists, and social workers, are often siloed and work in relative isolation from one another. Additionally, information is needed to determine how aspects of the models can (1) be delivered remotely to increase access to mental health services and supports, either due to lack of access or during disasters ( e.g., the pandemic, hurricanes, etc.); (2) focus on integrating prevention, universal screening, and targeted interventions in a school-based setting; and (3) increase the capacity of schools to connect students with mental health providers and specialized mental health professionals.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate evidence-based model demonstration projects. The models must establish and implement an evidence-based integrated school mental health program to enhance social, emotional, and mental health services and supports in middle school or high school settings to support youth with and at risk for disabilities.

The models must address the infrastructure ( e.g., implementation teams) and ongoing supports needed to foster the development, implementation, and evaluation of an integrated school mental health services system to support youth with and at risk for disabilities.

The models must demonstrate methods for implementing school-based prevention and universal interventions, early identification of youth with mental health needs, and targeted and intensive school interventions with coordinated service delivery in middle or high schools. The models must use data to provide information about how integrated school mental health services and supports, including interagency coordination and coordinated service delivery, can address the full continuum of student needs and affect child academic, social and emotional, and behavioral  15 outcomes for youth with and at risk for disabilities. The model demonstration projects must assess how models can—

• Improve the capacity of schools and school personnel to identify and support youth with and at risk for disabilities, particularly from underserved groups, who may benefit from or require social, emotional, or mental health services and supports;

• Establish, or support implementation of evidence-based integrated school mental health services and supports, to include prevention and intervention, that improve outcomes for youth with and at risk for disabilities who may benefit from or require social, emotional, or mental health services and supports;

• Improve the capacity of the school and build infrastructure to engage in interagency coordination and coordinated service delivery to support youth with and at risk for disabilities who may benefit from or require social, emotional, or mental health services and supports; and

• Improve understanding of barriers to interagency coordination and coordinated service delivery, including lack of local mental health providers, and how State agencies could reduce barriers to, and support, development and implementation of integrated school mental health services and supports for youth with and at risk for disabilities.

Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

(a) The model's core intervention components must include—

(1) Integrated school social, emotional, and mental health services and supports that are evidence-based;

(2) Ongoing measures of interagency coordination and coordinated service delivery and academic, social and emotional, and behavioral outcomes for youth with and at risk for disabilities who may benefit from or require social, emotional, or mental health services and supports;

(3) Professional development to support school personnel's appropriate and timely use of universal screening and referral data to inform the need for school mental health services and supports, intensity, and frequency dependent on school and student needs;

(4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing evaluation of integrated school mental health services and supports, fidelity of the implementation of evidence-based practices, and student academic, social and emotional, and behavioral outcomes;

(5) Procedures for schools to share data and inform policy at a central office, within the community, and at State levels so that the data can be used to make decisions to remove barriers to, and support, implementation and sustainability of integrated school mental health services and supports; and

(6) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of personnel, family, student, and administrator satisfaction with the model components, processes, and outcomes.

(b) The model's core implementation components must include—

(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting  16 and recruiting sites and the proposed integrated mental health services and supports for each site, including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site participants. 17 Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings ( e.g., urban, tribal, rural, suburban) and populations ( e.g., concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch); however, each project must include at least three middle or at least three high schools, with at least one being rural;

(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;

(3) A professional development component that includes a strategy to work with administrators, to enable site-based personnel to implement, with fidelity, integrated school mental health services and supports that are culturally responsive; and

(4) Measures of the results of the professional development required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include—

(1) Procedures and materials that permit current and future site-based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site;  18

(2) Guidelines and procedures to—

(i) Help administrators support integrated school mental health services and supports, interagency coordination, and coordinated service delivery;

(ii) Provide professional development related to integrated school mental health services and supports including interagency coordination and coordinated service delivery to school personnel;

(iii) Collect data on the effectiveness of the integrated school mental health services and supports, interagency coordination, and coordinated service delivery, and impact of these services on student academic, social and emotional, and behavioral outcomes;

(iv) Match the school mental health service and intensity of the strategies based on school and student need; and

(v) Collect data regarding the increased access of mental health services and supports; the types, frequency, and intensity of services; demographics of students that received services; and the fidelity of the implementation of the model, and communicate regularly about the data at the local, regional (as appropriate), and State levels;

(3) Strategies for the grantee to develop a manual, toolkit, and other resources for disseminating information on the final version of the model by the end of the grant period, such as developing easily accessible online products that specify model core components critical for improving outcomes, professional development materials, fidelity measures, key outcomes from the model, and implementation procedures for disseminating the model and its components; and

(4) Strategies for the grantee to assist State agencies ( e.g., State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs)) within the State to scale up a model and its components.

To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the requirements contained in this priority.

Application Requirements:

An applicant must include in its application—

(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed evidence-based model or its implementation components and the proposed processes to establish and implement integrated school mental health services and supports for middle or high school youth with and at risk for disabilities;

(b) A logic model  19 that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph (a) under the heading Priority ) of the proposed model demonstration project.

Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;

(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project ( i.e., the project design) to develop and implement integrated school mental health services and supports for youth with and at risk for disabilities, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:

(1) Each of the integrated school mental health services and support components.

(2) The existing and proposed measures of effectiveness of integrated school mental health services and supports and interagency coordination and coordinated service delivery; fidelity of the implementation of evidence-based practices; cultural responsiveness of integrated school mental health services and supports, education system characteristics, and child outcomes, as well as social validity measures. The measures must be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.

(3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, must be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description must include—

(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, the settings of, and children participating in, all of the implementation sites that have been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;

Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model demonstration and if the project is working with middle or high school sites. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (f)(1) of these application requirements; and

(ii) The lag site implementation design for implementation consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading Priority.

(4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c) under the heading Priority; and

(5) The cost of the fully developed model and its implementation, including the resources used by the model as well as their actual or estimated costs. 20

(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed and complete description must include—

(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's logic model, that includes evaluation questions, sources of data, a timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show how the outcome data ( e.g., child, personnel, or systems measures, social validity) and implementation data ( e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of professional development activities) will be used separately or in combination to improve the project during the performance period. These data will be reported in the annual performance report (APR). The plan also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and

(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, service provider, or system outcomes over time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child, personnel, or system outcome and implementation data collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model.

(e) A plan to disseminate the results of the project, including the findings that show the model had a beneficial effect on outcomes, the final version of the implemented model, and its associated products (such as curricula, professional development materials, implementation procedures, measures and assessments, guides, and toolkits). The dissemination plan must include the audiences who would most likely benefit from implementing the model and detailed strategies for reaching these audiences. In disseminating the results of the project, grantees must, at a minimum: Collaborate with OSEP-funded TA centers, publish in research and practitioner journals, and present at meetings of professional associations. Grantees may also consider collaborating with personnel preparation programs and OSEP-funded State Personnel Development Grant projects; providing webinars, training sessions, or workshops to State and local agencies; and engaging with other ED-funded TA centers, such as comprehensive centers, research and development centers, research networks, or Regional Educational Laboratories.

(f) A budget for attendance at the following:

(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award.

(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or virtually, occurring twice during the project performance period.

(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, or virtually.

Other Project Activities:

To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a minimum, must—

(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other Department-funded projects, consistent with paragraph (e) under the heading Application Requirements;

(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded under this priority;

(c) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection and the process of implementing the model in the sites.

Note: The following website provides more information about implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

(d) If the project maintains a website, include relevant information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration activities and ensure that the website meets government- or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

(e) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website.

The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48 months to disseminate the results of the project if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as part of the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to identifying the system supports needed to implement the model. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month period. The fifth year must be budgeted at $100,000. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including—

(a) The recommendations of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the first half of the fourth year of the project period;

(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed to changed practices and improved outcomes for children with disabilities.

Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional five points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority.

This priority is:

Applications from New Potential Grantees (0 or 5 points).

(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under the 84.326M program, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, five years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program.

(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.

References:

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priorities in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Administrative Priorities.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.

Estimated Available Funds: $2,400,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,600,000 per project for a project period of 60 months.

Note: Applicants must describe, in their applications, the amount of funding being requested for each 12-month budget period. The fifth-year budget period should be budgeted at $100,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 6.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, including charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.

4. Other General Requirements:

a. Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

b. Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (15 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies;

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population;

(iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement; and

(iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.

(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives;

(iii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures for documenting project activities and results;

(iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project; and

(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.

(c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;

(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate;

(v) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and

(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.

(d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes;

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;

(iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings; and

(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with—

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection, analysis, and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Services and Results for Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Disabilities under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These measures are—

• Current Program Performance Measure: The percentage of effective evidence-based program models developed by model demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network; and

• Pilot Program Performance Measure: The percentage of effective program models developed by model demonstration projects that are sustained beyond the life of the model demonstration project.

The current program performance measure and the pilot program performance measure apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On April 30, 2021, the Department published in the Federal Register the FY 2021 NIA for the HSI STEM and Articulation Program (86 FR 22947). This notice corrects the Award Information and Eligibility Information sections of the NIA. Specifically, we clarify that the estimated award dollar amounts are provided on a per year basis, and we correct the indirect cost rate information to specify that this program is subject to an unrestricted indirect cost rate.

All other information in the NIA, including the June 14, 2021, deadline for transmittal of applications, remains the same.

In FR Document 2021-09079 appearing on page 22947 in the Federal Register of April 30, 2021, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 22949, in the third column, in the section entitled “Award Information”, add “per year” after “$700,000-$1,000,000”.

2. On page 22950, in the second line of the first column, add “per year” after “$775,000”.

3. On page 22950, in the fifth paragraph of the second column, after heading “b. Indirect Cost Rate Information”, remove the first sentence and add, in its place, “This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate.”

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1067q(b)(2)(B).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with and 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.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: U.S. Department of Education Grant Performance Report Form (ED 524B).

OMB Control Number: 1894-0003.

Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,595.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 169,390.

Abstract: The ED 524B form and instructions are used by many ED discretionary grant programs to enable grantees to meet ED deadline dates for submission of performance reports to the Department.

Purpose of Program: The MSEIP is designed to effect long-range improvement in science and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and to increase the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into scientific and technological careers.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected schools and postsecondary institutions nationwide. Almost instantaneously, all educational institutions from pre-K to graduate programs had to establish distance education programs even though many schools, institutions, and families lacked the needed technology, software, and training to teach and learn in a remote environment. Recent research (Liu et al., 2020; Son et al., 2020; Panchal et al., 2021)  1 suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in long-term stressors that negatively affect the mental health of students. College students are experiencing numerous pandemic-related effects including closures of universities, loss of income, increased alcohol or substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, and symptoms of anxiety (Panchal et al., 2021). In a recent survey of over 2,000 college students conducted in April 2020, one in five respondents reported that their mental health had significantly worsened during the pandemic (Liu et al., 2020). This baseline data underscores the urgent need to aggressively address the mental health needs of college students through strategies for ensuring mental health service access and intentional outreach to students with special circumstances. In developing a proposed project, we strongly encourage applicants to incorporate interventions and preventive strategies to address the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college students.

Priority: This notice contains one competitive preference priority. The competitive preference priority is from the notice of final administrative priority and definitions for discretionary grants program published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2020 (85 FR 86545) (Remote Learning NFP).

Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2021, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional three points to an application that meets this priority. Applicants must indicate in the one-page abstract and on the FY 2021 MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form in the application package whether they address the competitive preference priority.

This priority is:

Building Capacity for Remote Learning (3 points).

Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project that is designed to address one or both 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).

Note: 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.

Definitions: The following definitions are from the Remote Learning NFP.

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.

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).

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1067-1067k.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 637. (e) The Remote Learning NFP.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $3,021,891.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: $200,000-$250,000.

Special Project Grants: $200,000-$250,000.

Cooperative Project Grants: $275,000-$300,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: $225,000.

Special Project Grants: $225,000.

Cooperative Project Grants: $287,500.

Maximum Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: $250,000.

Special Project Grants: $250,000.

Cooperative Project Grants: $300,000.

Estimated Number of Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: 10.

Special Project Grants: 2.

Cooperative Project Grants: 1.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: The eligibility of an applicant is dependent on the type of MSEIP grant the applicant seeks. There are four types of MSEIP grants: Institutional project, special project, cooperative project, and design project.

Institutional project grants are grants that support the implementation of a comprehensive science improvement plan, which may include any combination of activities for improving the preparation of minority students for careers in science.

There are two types of special project grants. First, there are special project grants for which only minority institutions are eligible. These special project grants support activities that: (1) Improve quality training in science and engineering at minority institutions; or (2) enhance the minority institutions' general scientific research capabilities. There also are special project grants for which all applicants are eligible. These special project grants support activities that: (1) Provide a needed service to a group of eligible minority institutions; or (2) provide in-service training for project directors, scientists, and engineers from eligible minority institutions.

Cooperative project grants assist groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities to work together to conduct a science improvement program.

Design project grants assist minority institutions that do not have their own appropriate resources or personnel to plan and develop long-range science improvement programs. We will not award design project grants in the FY 2021 competition.

(a) For institutional project grants, eligible applicants are limited to—

(1) Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that: (i) Award baccalaureate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions;

(2) Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that: (i) Award associate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions that (A) have a curriculum that includes science or engineering subjects; and (B) enter into a partnership with public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees in science and engineering.

(b) For special project grants for which only minority institutions are eligible, eligible applicants are described in paragraph (a).

(c) For special project grants for which all applicants are eligible, eligible applicants include those described in paragraph (a), and—

(1) Nonprofit science-oriented organizations, professional scientific societies, and institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees that: (i) Provide a needed service to a group of minority institutions; or (ii) provide in-service training to project directors, scientists, and engineers from minority institutions; or

(2) A consortia of organizations that provide needed services to one or more minority institutions, the membership of which may include: (i) Institutions of higher education which have a curriculum in science or engineering; (ii) institutions of higher education that have a graduate or professional program in science or engineering; (iii) research laboratories of, or under contract with, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, or the National Institutes of Health; (iv) relevant offices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, and National Institute of Standards and Technology; (v) quasi-governmental entities that have a significant scientific or engineering mission; or (vi) institutions of higher education that have State-sponsored centers for research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

(d) For cooperative project grants, eligible applicants are groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities whose primary fiscal agent is an eligible minority institution as defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b).

Note: As defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b), “minority institution” means an accredited college or university whose enrollment of a single minority group or a combination of minority groups as defined in 34 CFR 637.4 exceeds 50 percent of the total enrollment. The Secretary verifies this information from the data on enrollments (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 12-Month Enrollment survey) furnished by the institution to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. 2

Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a training indirect cost rate. This limits indirect cost reimbursement to an entity's actual indirect costs, as determined in its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For more information regarding training indirect cost rates, see 34 CFR 75.562. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the MSEIP grant competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurance and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the biography, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all the application narrative.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 637.32. Applicants should address each of the selection criteria. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria and up to 3 additional points under the competitive preference priority, for a total score of up to 103 points. All applications will be evaluated based on the selection criteria as follows:

(a) Identification of need for the project (Total 5 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the identification of need for the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) An adequate needs assessment;

(ii) An identification of specific needs in science; and

(iii) Involvement of appropriate individuals, especially science faculty, in identifying the institutional needs.

(b) Plan of operation (Total 20 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the plan of operation for the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Higher quality in the design of the project;

(ii) An effective plan of management that insures proper and efficient administration of the project;

(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program;

(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and

(v) Methods of coordination. (See 34 CFR 75.580)

(c) Quality of key personnel (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The qualifications of the project director (if one is to be used);

(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;

(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section plans to commit to the project; and

(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of a racial or ethnic minority group, women, handicapped persons, and the elderly.

(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence of past experience and training, in fields related to the objectives of the project, as well as other information that the applicant provides.

(d) Budget and cost effectiveness (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and

(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objective of the project.

Note: The Comprehensive Budget Narrative will be part of the information reviewed under this selection criterion.

(e) Evaluation plan (Total 15 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the evaluation plan for the project. (See 34 CFR 75.590)

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows methods of evaluation that are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable.

Note: In considering the quality of an evaluation plan, for each proposed objective, the Secretary may consider, among other things, the baseline indicators of progress for each proposed grant year, the methods of evaluation, the types of data that will be collected to assess the final project outcomes and the data collection procedures that will be used, the proposed timetable for conducting the evaluation, and the procedures for analyzing and using both formative and summative data.

Note: In considering whether an evaluation plan shows methods of evaluation that are objective, the Secretary considers whether the evaluation is to be conducted by an independent evaluator.

(f) Adequacy of resources (Total 5 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the applicant plans to devote adequate resources to the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The facilities that the applicant plans to use are adequate; and

(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are adequate.

Note: An applicant should indicate if these resources are available at its institution or at partner institutions or if the applicant plans to acquire them.

(g) Potential institutional impact of the project (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the proposed project gives evidence of potential for enhancing the institution's capacity for improving and maintaining quality science education for its minority students, particularly minority women.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) For an institutional or cooperative project, the extent to which both the established science education program(s) and the proposed project will expand or strengthen the established program(s) in relation to the identified needs; or

(ii) For a special project, the extent to which it addresses needs that have not been adequately addressed by an existing institutional science program or takes a particularly new and exemplary approach that has not been taken by any existing institutional science program.

(h) Institutional commitment to the project (Total 5 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the applicant plans to continue the project activities when funding ceases.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Adequate institutional commitment to absorb any after-the-grant burden initiated by the project;

(ii) Adequate plans for continuation of project activities when funding ceases;

(iii) Clear evidence of past institutional commitment to the provision of quality science programs for its minority students; and

(iv) A local review statement signed by the chief executive officer of the institution endorsing the project and indicating how the project will accelerate the attainment of the institutional goals in science.

(i) Expected outcomes (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which minority students, particularly minority women, will benefit from the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Expected outcomes likely to result in the accomplishment of the program goal;

(ii) Educational value for science students; and

(iii) Possibility of long-term benefits to minority students, faculty, or the institution.

(j) Scientific and educational value of the proposed project (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows its potential for contributions to science education.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The relationship of the proposed project to the present state of science education;

(ii) The use or development of effective techniques and approaches in science education; and

(iii) Potential use of some aspects of the project at other institutions.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with—

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department will use the following performance measures to evaluate the success of the MSEIP grants: (1) The percentage of change in the number of full-time, degree-seeking minority undergraduate students at the grantee's institution enrolled in the fields of engineering or physical or biological sciences, compared to the average minority enrollment in the same fields in the three-year period immediately prior to the beginning of the current grant; (2) the percentage of minority students enrolled at four-year minority institutions in the fields of engineering or physical or biological sciences who graduate within six years of enrollment. Please see the application package for details of data collection and reporting requirements for these measures.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

The Local Leadership Council is established under agency authority pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The Advisory Committee is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The Advisory Committee shall advise the EAC on how best to fulfill the EAC's statutory duties set forth in 52 U.S.C. 20922 as well as such other matters as the EAC determines. It shall provide a relevant and comprehensive source of expert, unbiased analysis and recommendations to the EAC on local election administration topics to include but are not limited to voter registration and registration database maintenance, voting system user practices, ballot administration (programming, printing, and logistics), processing, accounting, canvassing, chain of custody, certifying results, and auditing.

The Local Leadership Council shall consist of 100 members. The Election Assistance Commission shall appoint two (2) members from each state after soliciting nominations from each state's election official professional association. Upon appointment, Advisory Committee members must be serving or have previously served in a leadership role in a state election official professional association.

Elections in the United States are ultimately administered by local election officials operating under election laws and procedures that often differ from state to state. By appointing two members from each state, members of the Advisory Committee will be chosen in a way that ensures geographic diversity, objectivity, and balance as well as encompass the full spectrum of election administration expertise throughout the United States. Local election officials are impacted by all of the EAC's statutory duties set forth in 52 U.S.C. 20922. The Advisory Committee's guidance and recommendations will be key to the ongoing success of the EAC's mission and programs.

Members shall be invited to serve for a term of 2 years and may serve consecutive terms. As necessary, subcommittees may be established by the EAC. The Committee will meet a minimum of once a year for the purposes of advising the EAC.

Local Leadership Council members shall not be compensated for their services but will, upon request, be reimbursed for or provided with travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq., while attending Advisory Committee meetings or subcommittee meetings thereof, while away from their homes or regular places of business.

Title: FERC-537 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition, and Abandonment).

OMB Control No.: 1902-0060.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-537 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

Abstract: The FERC-537 information collection requires natural gas companies to file information with FERC in order for the Commission to determine if the requested certificate should be authorized. Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act  1 requires natural gas companies to obtain Commission approval before constructing, extending, or abandoning facilities or service. The Commission implements section 7 primarily under regulations at 18 CFR part 157, subpart A. In addition, some regulations at 18 CFR part 284 are involved.

When the Commission grants a request to construct or extend pipeline facilities or service, it issues a certificate of public convenience and necessity.

The data generally required to be submitted in a certificate filing consists of identification of the company and responsible officials, factors considered in the location of the facilities and the impact on the area for environmental considerations. Also, to be submitted are the following, as applicable to the specific request:

• Flow diagrams showing the design capacity for engineering design verification and safety determination;

• Cost of proposed facilities, plans for financing, and estimated revenues and expenses related to the proposed facility for accounting and financial evaluation; or

• Existing and proposed storage capacity and pressures and reservoir engineering studies for requests to increase storage capacity.

Applications for an order authorizing abandonment of facilities or service must contain a statement providing in detail the reasons for the requested abandonment and must contain exhibits listed at 18 CFR 157.18, as well as an affidavit showing the consent of existing customers. With some exceptions, such applications also must include an environmental report.

Applicants filing in accordance with 18 CFR part 157, subpart A (either for a certificate or for abandonment) generally must make a good-faith effort to provide notice of the application to all affected landowners, towns, communities, and government agencies.

Certain self-implementing construction and abandonment programs do not require the filing of applications. However, those types of programs do require the filing of annual reports, so many less significant actions can be reported in a single filing/response and less detail would be required. Additionally, requests for an increase of pipeline capacity must include a statement that demonstrates compliance with the Commission's Certificate Policy Statement by making a showing that the cost of the expansion will not be subsidized by existing customers and that there will not be adverse economic impacts to existing customers, competing pipelines or their customers, nor to landowners and to surrounding communities.

The Commission reviews and analyses the information filed under the regulations subject to FERC-537 to determine whether to approve or deny the requested authorization. If the Commission failed to collect these data, it would lose its ability to review relevant information to determine whether the requested certificate should be authorized.

Type of Respondents: Jurisdictional natural gas companies.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   2 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit IV.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides shown in the following table and opens a 60-day public comment period on the risk assessments.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments.

Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audio-graphic or video-graphic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Given other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#tips.

The FIFRA SAP serves as a scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide independent scientific advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Members serve staggered terms of appointment, generally of three to six years duration. FIFRA established a Science Review Board (SRB) consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP. As a scientific peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations, and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Agency.

A Charter for the FIFRA SAP, dated October 17, 2020, was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. Appendix). The Charter provides for open meetings with opportunities for public participation.

Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert comments on the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. In accordance with section 25(d)(1) of FIFRA, the Administrator shall require nominees to the FIFRA SAP to furnish information concerning their professional qualifications, including educational background, employment history, and scientific publications. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the FIFRA SAP by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a federal department or agency, or their employment by a federal department or agency (except the EPA). FIFRA further stipulates that the Agency publish the name, address, and professional affiliation of the nominees in the Federal Register .

With respect to the requirements of section 25(d) of FIFRA that the Administrator promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest, FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2635, conflict of interest statutes in Title 18 of the United States Code, and related regulations. Each nominee selected by the Administrator, before being formally appointed, is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any.

The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting new members to serve on the panel to address upcoming expirations of membership terms.

On February 5, 2021, in accordance with the provisions of section 25(d) of FIFRA, EPA requested that the NIH and the NSF nominate scientists to fill vacancies occurring on the FIFRA SAP. The Agency requested that NIH and NSF nominate experts in the fields of ecological and human exposure assessment, including expertise in environmental fate and transport of chemicals, mathematical biostatistics, New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), including in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE), and expertise in toxicology, including carcinogenicity and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling (PBPK). Experts with specific experience in risk assessment, dose response analysis, cheminformatics, bioinformatics, and genomics are preferred. Nominees should be well published and current in their fields of expertise.

NIH and NSF responded, providing the Agency with a total of 25 nominees. One nominee, Dr. Jeffrey Bloomquist, Ph.D., of the University of Florida is a member of the FIFRA SAP with a current term ending in 2022. Therefore, he is not considered further at this time. Of the remaining 24 nominees, 10 are interested and available to actively participate in FIFRA SAP meetings (see Unit IV.D.).

The following 14 individuals are not available to be considered further for membership at this time:

The following are the names, addresses, and professional affiliations of current nominees being considered for membership on the FIFRA SAP. Selected biographical data for each nominee is available in the public docket at www.regulations.gov (docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0293) and through the FIFRA SAP website at https://www.epa.gov/sap. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting new members to fill upcoming vacancies occurring on the Panel:

The NANC meeting is open to the public on the internet via live feed from the FCC's web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live. Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Please allow at least five days' advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate. Members of the public may submit comments to the NANC in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Comments to the NANC should be filed in CC Docket No. 92-237. This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 21-578, released May 14, 2021.

Proposed Agenda: At the June 23 meeting, the NANC will consider and vote on recommendations from the Numbering Administration Oversight working group on the North American Numbering Plan Billing & Collection Fund Size Projections and Contributions Factor, as well as an evaluation of the performance of the Billing & Collection Agent, Welch LLP. The NANC will also hear reports from the Billing & Collection Agent, Welch LLP, the Numbering Administration Oversight working group on the Reassigned Numbers Database and Administrator, and routine status reports from the North American Portability Management, LLC and the Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority. This agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chair and the Designated Federal Officers (DFO). (5 U.S.C. App 2 § 10(a)(2))

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Recordkeeping, Disclosure and Reporting Requirements in Connection with Regulation Z.

OMB Control Number: 3064-0082.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: FDIC-supervised institutions.

Burden Estimate: The total estimated annual burden is 2,031,731 hours and is detailed in the following tables:

General Description of the Collection: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Regulation Z—12 CFR 1026 implements the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. ) and certain provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ). This regulation prescribes uniform methods for computing the cost of credit, the disclosure of credit terms and costs, the resolution of errors and imposes various other recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure requirements. The FDIC has enforcement authority on the requirements of the CFPB's Regulation over the financial institutions it supervises. This information collection captures the recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure burdens of Regulation Z on FDIC-supervised institutions. To arrive at the estimated annual burden the FDIC assessed the number of potential respondents to the information collection by identifying the number of FDIC-supervised institutions who reported activity that would be within the scope of the information collection requirements according to data from the most recent Call Report. Additionally, the FDIC estimated the frequency of responses to the recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements by assessing the dollar volume of activity that would be within the scope of the information collection. In some instances the FDIC used information provided by other sources to estimate the magnitude and scope of activity attributable to FDIC-supervised institutions when more immediate information sources did not exist. There is no change in the substance or methodology of this information collection. The reduction in total estimated annual burden from 2,395,630 hours to 2,031,731 hours is solely attributable to agency estimates driven by economic fluctuations.

2. Title: Account Based Disclosures in Connection with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulations E and DD and Federal Reserve Regulation CC.

OMB Control Number: 3064-0084.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: FDIC-supervised institutions.

Burden Estimate: