Rule2021-16853
Final Priority-Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Assessment Center
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 5, 2021
Effective
September 7, 2021
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number 84.326G. The Department may use the priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a National Assessment Center (Center) to focus attention on an identified need to address national, State, and local assessment issues related to students with disabilities, including students with disabilities who are also English learners (ELs).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42718-42724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16853]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2021-OSERS-0018]
Final Priority--Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve
Services and Results for Children With Disabilities and Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection--National Assessment Center
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and
Results for Children with Disabilities and Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number 84.326G. The
Department may use the priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2021 and later years. We will use the priority to award a cooperative
agreement for a National Assessment Center (Center) to focus attention
on an identified need to address national, State, and local assessment
issues related to students with disabilities, including students with
disabilities who are also English learners (ELs).
DATES: Effective September 7, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Egnor, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334 or (202) 856-6409.
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a7e7b6c737e347f7d7475685a7f7e347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d797c6b747933787a73726f5d7879337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Programs: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve
results for children with disabilities by providing technical
assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by
scientifically based research. The purpose of the Technical Assistance
on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States
to meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data
collection and reporting requirements. In addition, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, gives the Secretary authority to use funds
reserved under section 611(c) of the IDEA to administer and carry out
other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination,
quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411, 1416, 1463, and 1481; and the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Div. H, Title III of Public Law
116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in
Federal civil rights laws.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
[[Page 42719]]
We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on March 25, 2021 (86 FR 15830). That document
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities.
Under section 681 of the IDEA, the Secretary may give priority to
the activities listed in section 681(d) without regard to the
rulemaking procedures in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA). The activities required to be conducted under Proposed
Priority 1 are activities listed in section 681(d), whereas the
activities required to be conducted under Proposed Priority 2 include
activities that are outside the exemption from rulemaking under IDEA
section 681(d). As a result, pursuant to the notice and comment
rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the APA, in the NPP, the
Department specifically invited comments regarding Proposed Priority 2,
including: (1) The program requirements under Proposed Priority 2; and
(2) the application and administrative requirements under the common
elements section of Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed Priority 2, but
only as the requirements apply to Proposed Priority 2. We appreciate
commenters' input on Proposed Priority 1. For the purposes of this
notice of final priority (NFP), we address only the comments on
Proposed Priority 2, including the associated application and
administrative requirements.
We make substantive changes to Proposed Priority 2 by adding a
focus on increasing the capacity of parents of students with
disabilities to understand the statutory and regulatory bases for, and
benefits of, including all students with disabilities in State and
districtwide assessments and other assessments used for educational
programming and instructional purposes. These substantive changes
impact how Proposed Priority 2 focuses attention on the important role
that parents play in addressing an identified need to address national,
State, and local assessment issues related to students with
disabilities, including students with disabilities who are also English
learners (ELs).
There are also editorial differences between Proposed Priority 2
and its requirements and the final priority and requirements. In this
NFP, we refer to Proposed Priority 2 as the priority, and to the
Proposed Priority 2 application and administrative requirements common
to Proposed Priority 1 and 2, as the requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight
parties submitted comments on the priority and requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the priority or
requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
Comment: Four commenters recommended that the Center include a
focus on increasing the capacity of parents to understand the
statutory, regulatory, and instructional programming bases for
including all students with disabilities in State and districtwide
assessments. These commenters noted that parents lack sufficient
information regarding the participation of students with disabilities
in State and districtwide assessments.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters regarding the importance
of increasing the capacity of parents to understand the statutory,
regulatory, and instructional programming bases for including all
students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments as
well as other assessments used for educational programming and
instructional purposes. Increasing parents' understanding in this area
is likely to help ensure their meaningful involvement in decisions
States make in analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative
assessment data to better achieve their State-Identified Measurable
Result (SIMR), for those States that have a SIMR related to assessment,
while at the same time incentivizing States to ensure the data reviewed
and analyzed by the parents are of the highest quality; and thus
improve data quality and use under IDEA Part B, consistent with section
611(c) of the IDEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which
authorizes the Secretary to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of
the IDEA to administer and carry out other services and activities to
improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B
and C of the IDEA. Therefore, we are revising the priority to require
applicants to propose how the Center will increase the awareness of and
understanding by parents of students with disabilities, regarding how
students with disabilities are included in, and benefit from,
participation in State and districtwide assessments and other
assessments used for educational programming and instructional purposes
to improve instruction of students with disabilities and support the
implementation of the SIMR.
Changes: We have revised the expected outcomes of the priority by
requiring applicants propose how the Center will increase parents of
students with disabilities' awareness of and understanding of how
students with disabilities are included in, and benefit from,
participation in diagnostic, interim and summative assessments.
Comment: One commenter recommended revising references to
``interim'' assessments to ``formative'' assessments, noting that
``interim'' implies a less prescriptive and formal process than
``formative.''
Discussion: We understand the point the commenter makes in general
regarding the common meanings of the terms ``interim'' and
``formative''; however, we disagree with the commenter that these
distinctions apply to large-scale State and districtwide academic
assessments. Interim assessments are more prescriptive and formal than
formative assessments. Interim academic assessments typically focus on
measuring student achievement based on a subset of State or school
district established grade-level academic content standards. As such,
they are designed to measure individual and collective student growth
and are used to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching practices,
programs, and initiatives; and project whether a student, class, or
school is on track to achieve established proficiency benchmarks.
Interim assessments can also provide information regarding the
instructional needs of individual students, but to a lesser extent than
formative assessments. In contrast, formative assessments typically are
connected to a discrete instructional unit, the results of which are
intended to help educators guide the learning process of individual
students, rather than measure student performance against State or
districtwide academic content and achievement standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the structure of the notice was
confusing, and, in response to Executive Order 12866 and the
Presidential memorandum ``Plain Language in Government Writing,''
recommended ways to reformat the proposed priority to improve clarity.
Discussion: The formatting for the notice published in the Federal
Register was consistent with the Department's formatting requirements
for publishing proposed priorities. However, we
[[Page 42720]]
appreciate the commenter's feedback and will consider the commenter's
formatting recommendations for future proposed priorities. In addition,
we have described above our reasons for the structure of the NPP, and
this NFP.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Targeted and Intensive Technical Assistance to States on the Analysis
and Use of Diagnostic, Interim, and Summative Assessment Data To
Support Implementation of States' Identified Measurable Results
The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist those States that
have a SIMR related to assessment in analyzing and using diagnostic,
interim, and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as
described in their IDEA Part B State Systemic Improvement Plans
(SSIPs); and (2) assist State efforts to provide technical assistance
(TA) to local educational agencies (LEAs) in analyzing and using State
and districtwide assessment data, for those States that have a SIMR
related to assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of State educational agency (SEA) personnel
in States that have a SIMR related to assessment results to analyze and
use diagnostic, interim and summative assessment data to better achieve
the SIMR as described in the IDEA Part B SSIPs, including using
diagnostic, interim and summative assessment data to evaluate and
improve educational policy, inform instructional programs, and improve
instruction for students with disabilities;
(b) Increased capacity of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs to
analyze and use diagnostic, interim and summative assessment data to
improve instruction of students with disabilities and support the
implementation of the SIMR; and
(c) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to
understand how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit
from, participation in diagnostic, interim and summative assessments to
improve instruction of students with disabilities and support
implementation of the SIMR.
In addition to these program requirements, to be considered for
funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and
administrative requirements under the priority Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--National Assessment Center and the following application
and administrative requirements, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use
diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with
disabilities. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, and local data
demonstrating the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic,
interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making
to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives related to analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and
summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve
teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and
(iii) Describe the current level of implementation related to
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data
in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities; and
(2) Improve the analysis and use of diagnostic, interim, and
summative assessment data to improve teaching and learning for students
with disabilities.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients (e.g., by creating materials in formats and
languages accessible to the stakeholders served by the intended
recipients);
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In appendix A, the logic model \1\ by which the proposed
project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum,
the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed
project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: <a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel">www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel</a> and <a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework">www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework</a>.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \2\
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means,
at a minimum, evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in
34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component included in the
project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings
that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on the effectiveness of analyzing and
using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current EBPs in the
development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data
in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must
[[Page 42721]]
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\4\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\5\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA
personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at
the SEA and LEA levels;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems that include
professional development based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to support the collection, analysis,
and use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities; and
(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded TA investments, where appropriate, in order to align
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and
services to meet the purposes of this priority;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies,
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance
report (APR) and at the end of Year 2 for the review process described
under the heading, Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a ``third-party'' evaluator, as well as the costs associated with
the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
[[Page 42722]]
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OSEP has found that a minimum of a three-quarter time
equivalency (0.75 FTE) in the role of project director (or divided
between a half-time equivalency in the role of the project director
and a quarter-time equivalency in the role of a co-project director)
is necessary to ensure effective implementation of the management
plan and that products and services provided are of high quality,
relevant, and useful to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period;
(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend Department
briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as
requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, during the second year of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility;
(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project
goals is posted on the project website; and
(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the
continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award
at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR
75.253(a), including--
(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts
who have experience and knowledge in providing technical assistance to
SEA and LEA personnel in including students with disabilities in
assessments and accountability systems. This review will be conducted
during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last
half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's
products and services and the extent to which the project's products
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue
funding accordingly.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
[[Page 42723]]
permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority only on a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the costs associated with the final
priority will be minimal, while the benefits are significant. The
Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose
significant costs on eligible entities. Participation in this program
is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory
action will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application. The benefits of implementing the program to focus
attention on an identified need to address national, State, and local
assessment issues related to students with disabilities, including
students with disabilities who are also ELs, will outweigh the costs
incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities
associated with the application will be paid for with program funds.
For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation
will not be excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including
small entities.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority is needed to administer
the program effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority contains information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under control number 1820-0028; the final
priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing
a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies;
private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying
areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the
final priority and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this final
priority will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection--National Assessment Center program
is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority will impose no burden
on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We
expect that in determining whether to apply for the Technical
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for
Children with Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection--National Assessment Center program funds, an eligible
entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and
any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be
achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance and Dissemination to
Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Assessment
Center program grant. An eligible entity will most likely apply only if
it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application.
We believe that the final priority will not impose any additional
burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would
face in the absence of the final action. That is, the length of the
applications those entities would submit in the absence of the final
regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application will
likely be the same.
This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
[[Page 42724]]
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. 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
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Katherine Neas,
Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-16853 Filed 8-3-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 5, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.