[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8054-8059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04035]



[[Page 8054]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0001]


Proposed Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The mission of the Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood, 
educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all 
people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the 
Nation. As such, the Department of Education (Department) proposes a 
priority and requirements under the Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection program. The Department may use this priority and these 
requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and later years. 
We take this action to focus attention on an identified national need 
to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States 
to meet the data collection requirements under Part B of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center would 
support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best 
analyze and use their data to establish and meet high expectations for 
each child with a disability and would customize its TA to meet each 
State's specific needs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``How to use Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and 
requirements, address them to Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5172, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5172, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email: 
[email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority and 
requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of 
the proposed priority or requirement that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priority or any of the proposed requirements would be 
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed 
priority or requirements could be revised to address potential 
challenges.
    Directed Question: For the proposed priority, the Department is 
also considering a specific requirement that would limit the 
reimbursement of indirect costs under this grant competition in order 
to maximize the funding available to provide TA to States to meet data 
collection and reporting requirements and improve data collection, 
coordination, quality, and use under Part B of IDEA.
    We are considering this requirement based on 2 CFR 200.414(c)(1), 
which allows a Federal awarding agency to use an indirect cost rate 
different from the negotiated rate when required by Federal statute or 
regulation or when approved by a Federal awarding agency head or 
delegate based on documented justification when the Federal awarding 
agency implements, and makes publicly available, the policies, 
procedures and general decision making criteria that their programs 
will follow to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates. 
Federal discretionary grantees have historically been reimbursed for 
indirect costs at the rate that the grantee has negotiated with its 
Federal cognizant agency, and we believe that use of the negotiated 
rate is appropriate for most grants in most circumstances. However, 
because funding for this program comes from funds reserved by the 
Department that would otherwise be allocated to States under Part B 
(which applies a restricted indirect cost rate to State grantees), we 
are considering limiting indirect costs to maximize the availability of 
funds for the primary purposes of this priority.
    We analyzed historical grantee data for grants previously awarded 
under CFDA number 84.373 and found a wide range of indirect cost rate 
agreements in place. We are considering setting a reasonable cap in an 
amount, for example, between 25 percent to 40 percent for those 
administrative costs that are indirect costs for grantees, including 
subrecipients, or potentially implementing an approach to allow 
programs to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates. The 
Secretary invites comments on the practical implications of this 
proposed indirect cost limitation for grantees and subrecipients, and 
specific comments on the maximum indirect cost rate, including what a 
reasonable cap would be and the rationale for the proposed amount, and 
thoughts on allowing programs to seek and justify deviations.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from this proposed priority and these proposed requirements. Please let 
us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase 
potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient 
administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 
5172, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between 
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

[[Page 8055]]

    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for the proposed priority and requirements. If 
you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or 
auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary the authority to reserve up to \1/2\ of 1 percent of the 
amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA 
activities, where needed to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. 
The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for 
any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of 
inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the 
data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and 
information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of 
IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. 
It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve 
the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which 
include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA. Additionally, Division H of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2018 gives the Secretary authority to use funds 
reserved under section 611(c) to ``carry out services and activities to 
improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B 
and C of the IDEA.'' Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, 
Title III of Public Law 115-141; 132 Stat. 745 (2018).
    To help ensure this program meets State needs, we invited the 
public to provide input on the Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection program from April 24, 2018, through May 24, 2018, on the 
ED.gov OSERS Blog.\1\ In response to this invitation, we received 63 
relevant responses, all of which we considered in our development of 
this document. Sixty-two supported our continuing to fund TA centers; 
only one supported one of the other options we presented, specifically, 
to invite State educational agencies and State lead agencies to 
directly apply for funds reserved under section 611(c) to purchase TA 
to improve their capacity to meet their IDEA Part B and Part C data 
collection requirements. A few commenters noted some concerns regarding 
overlap between centers and a need for cross-State collaboration. We 
addressed these concerns in the proposed priority by: (1) Including a 
requirement for the center to offer cross-State collaboration TA 
opportunities; and (2) clarifying the scope of this center and the 
National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data 
Systems, CFDA number 84.373Z, the proposed priority for which is 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2018/04/use-of-part-b-program-funds-for-technical-assistance-to-states-on-idea-data-collection/.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442, 
and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, 
Title III of Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018; 132 Stat. 745 (2018).

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following priority for this 
program. We may apply this proposed priority in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.

Background

    The Department has reviewed the data collection and analysis 
capacity of States to ensure that IDEA data are being collected and 
accurately reported to the Department and the public. Specifically, the 
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has reviewed and analyzed 
information from multiple sources, including Data Quality Reviews 
conducted by OSEP to evaluate the accuracy of section 618 data, written 
and oral communication with States through the data quality process, 
and State-initiated requests for TA. The Department's assessment is 
that States have varying needs for TA to improve their data collection 
capacity and their ability to ensure data are accurate and can be 
reported to the Department and the public. States also need TA to help 
them improve their capacity to analyze and use data so they can provide 
more accurate information about their efforts to improve implementation 
of IDEA and more accurately target future improvement activities in 
their State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted as part of 
their State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/APRs).
    To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of data by States, OSEP proposes a 
priority to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
    This proposed priority aligns with two priorities from the 
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant 
Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 
9096): Priority 2: Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining 
Education With an Increased Focus on Student Outcomes, and Providing 
Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers; and Priority 5: Meeting the 
Unique Needs of Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique 
Gifts and Talents.

Proposed Priority

    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).
    The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current 
and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements, 
improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and 
other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and 
address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. This Data 
Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, 
and using Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. However, the Data Center 
will not provide TA on Part B data required under section 616 of IDEA 
for those indicators solely associated with children with disabilities 
ages 3 through 5, such as Indicators B6 (Preschool Least Restrictive 
Environment), B7 (Preschool Outcomes), and B12 (Early Childhood 
Transition), and Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 
through 5 required under section 618 of IDEA for the Part B Child Count 
and Educational Environments data collection. TA on collecting, 
reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data required under sections 616 
and 618 solely associated with children with disabilities ages 3

[[Page 8056]]

through 5 would be provided by the National IDEA Technical Assistance 
Center on Early Childhood Data Systems, CFDA number 84.373Z.
    The Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the 
following expected outcomes:
    (a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and 
promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among 
relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs), 
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality 
of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
    (b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely 
data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent 
future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
    (c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and 
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing 
personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training 
modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes), 
and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State 
collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that 
States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and 
districts;
    (d) Improved capacity of SEAs and LEAs to collect, analyze, and use 
both SEA and LEA IDEA data to identify programmatic strengths and areas 
for improvement, address root causes of poor performance towards 
outcomes, and evaluate progress towards outcomes;
    (e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data 
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate 
tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the 
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to 
communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents, school 
boards, the general public); and
    (f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B data.

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)).

Proposed Requirements

    In addition to the programmatic requirements contained in the 
proposed priority, we propose that, to be considered for funding, 
applicants must meet the following requirements.

Proposed Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirements for 
this program. We may apply one or more of these proposed requirements 
in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Applicants must--
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their 
capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as both a 
means of improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths 
and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant 
must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting 
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems, 
as appropriate;
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to 
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and 
section 618 data as both a means of improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and
    (iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and 
section 618 data as both a means of improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
    (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 of the grant;
    (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 (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;


    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices (EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based 
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings 
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention 
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report 
and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as both a 
means of improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for 
improvement; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and

[[Page 8057]]

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 
the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection 
and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections 
616 and 618 data as both a means of improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must 
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 related to the IDEA 
Part B data collection and reporting requirements 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 capacity needs of SEAs 
and LEAs to meet Part B data collection and reporting requirements 
under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded TA investments and Institute of Education Sciences/
National Center for Education Statistics research and development 
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.
    (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 APR and at the end of 
Year 2 for the review process; 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,'' 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, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--

[[Page 8058]]

    (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;
    (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:
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, 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, during each year of the project period; and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 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) 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 this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
    (6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
intensive, sustained TA.

Final Priority and Requirements

    We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and 
requirements after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities or requirements 
subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.


    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use this proposed priority and one or more of 
these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.


Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2019, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 
13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income 
transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those 
regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the proposed priority 
and requirements would be utilized in connection with a discretionary 
grant program, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that 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

[[Page 8059]]

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 proposed priority and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' 
as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below 
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small 
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), 
with a population of less than 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs 
under State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); 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 
proposed priority and requirements would be limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this 
proposed priority and these proposed requirements would outweigh any 
costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority and 
requirements would impose no burden on small entities unless they 
applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining 
whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program funds, an eligible entity would 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 on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity 
would probably apply only if it determines that the likely benefits 
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priority and requirements would not 
impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant 
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That 
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the 
absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to 
prepare an application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would 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. We invite comments from small eligible entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.
    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.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 Adobe 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.

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.373Y.]

    Dated: March 1, 2019.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-04035 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P