[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 47 (Friday, March 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14048-14054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2020-OSERS-0179]


Proposed Priority, Requirement, and Definitions--National 
Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With 
Disabilities

AGENCY: Offices of Elementary and Secondary Education and Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority, requirement, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority, 
requirement, and definitions for the National Comprehensive Center on 
Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities (Center) program, 
Assistance Listing Number 84.283D. The Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act 
(ESEA), requires the Secretary to establish a comprehensive center for 
students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a 
disability. The Department proposes a priority, requirement, and 
definitions that the Department may use in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and 
later years. We intend to use the priority, requirement, and 
definitions to award a cooperative agreement for a comprehensive center 
designed to improve literacy skills for students at risk of not 
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability and ultimately 
better prepare these students to compete in a global economy.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 12, 2021.

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 ``Help.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority, requirement, 
and definitions,

[[Page 14049]]

address them to Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of Education, 400 
Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 
20202-5076.

    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: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6715. 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, requirement, and definitions. To ensure that 
your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final 
priority requirement, and definitions, we urge you to identify clearly 
the specific section of the proposed priority, requirement, or 
definition that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priority, requirement, and definitions would be challenging 
for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed priority, 
requirement, and definitions could be revised to address potential 
challenges and reduce burden.
    Directed Question 1: For the proposed priority, the Department is 
considering a requirement that would limit the reimbursement of 
indirect costs based on the grantee's modified total direct cost (MTDC) 
base, as defined in 2 CFR 200.68.

    Note:  The MTDC is different from the total amount of the grant. 
Additionally, the MTDC is not the same as a percentage of each 
specific expenditure category or a specific expenditure category. If 
the grantee is billing based on the MTDC base, the grantee must make 
its MTDC documentation available to the program office and the 
Department's Indirect Cost Unit.

    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 head 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 
cognizant Federal agency, and we believe that use of the negotiated 
rate is appropriate for most grants in most circumstances. However, the 
Department analyzed the indirect cost rates for all current 
comprehensive centers (Assistance Listing Number 84.283) and found a 
wide range of indirect cost rate agreements in place. The indirect cost 
rates ranged from 10 percent to over 125 percent, with an average of 52 
percent. The percentage of indirect costs charged to the grant compared 
to total budget amounts varied across the current comprehensive centers 
from 9 percent to 39 percent, with 33 percent of grantees charging 
between 20 percent and 35 percent. We are considering limiting the 
indirect costs to maximize the availability of funds to provide 
technical assistance (TA) to a variety of stakeholders to meet the 
needs of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to 
a disability, including dyslexia.
    Consistent with our analysis, we have proposed a requirement that 
would set a reasonable cap in an amount between 20 percent to 35 
percent for those administrative costs that are indirect costs for 
grantees, including subrecipients.
    The Department invites comments on the practical implications of 
this proposed indirect cost limitation for the grantee and 
subrecipients, 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.
    Directed Question 2: The Department seeks information on the rigor 
of the evaluation that should be conducted by the Center. Paragraph (c) 
of the proposed priority outlines the proposed requirements related to 
a third-party evaluator. The Department is interested in comments 
related to the evaluation methods or research designs, cost, and 
personnel time needed to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the Center's 
effect on student literacy achievement and the capacity of educators to 
implement evidence-based (as defined in section 8101(21) of the ESEA) 
instruction and assessment. Relatedly, the Department invites comments 
on the appropriateness of using a ``third party'' or independent 
evaluator, particularly for the summative evaluation.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the 
proposed priority, requirement, and definitions. 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, requirement, and definitions by 
accessing Regulations.gov. Due to the current novel coronavirus 2019 
(COVID-19) pandemic, the Department buildings are currently not open. 
However, upon reopening, you may also inspect the comments in person in 
Room 5175, 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. Please contact the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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, requirement, and 
definitions. 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 Comprehensive Centers program supports the 
establishment of not fewer than 20 comprehensive centers to provide 
capacity building services to State educational agencies (SEAs), 
regional educational agencies (REAs), local educational agencies 
(LEAs), and schools that improve educational outcomes for all students, 
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction. The 
purpose of the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for 
Students with Disabilities (Center) is to identify or develop evidence-
based literacy assessment tools and professional development activities 
and identify evidence-based instruction, strategies, and accommodations 
for students at risk

[[Page 14050]]

of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including 
dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting 
reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive 
functioning. The Center will also disseminate its products and 
information on evidence-based literacy to families, SEAs, LEAs, REAs, 
and schools.
    Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical 
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9602) and section 2244 of the 
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6674).

Proposed Priority

    This notice contains one proposed priority.

National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With 
Disabilities

    Background: Section 2244 of the ESEA requires the Secretary to 
establish a comprehensive center on students at risk of not attaining 
full literacy skills due to a disability. Comprehensive centers are 
typically administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education (OESE). OESE is funding this Center; however, because of the 
Center's subject matter, it will be administered jointly by OESE and 
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
    The project is designed to improve implementation of evidence-based 
literacy practices in both teacher classroom and remote learning 
environments. With respect to remote learning, the proposed priority is 
intended to ensure that teachers have the training and support they 
need to implement evidence-based literacy practices during remote 
instruction for students with disabilities, including students with 
dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting 
reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive 
functioning. Remote learning plays a critical role in regular 
instruction and can serve as a crucial link allowing high-quality 
teaching and learning to continue when regular instruction is 
disrupted.
    The project will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal 
civil rights laws.
    Proposed Priority: The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund 
a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a National 
Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with 
Disabilities (Center) for children in early childhood education 
programs through high school. The Center must--
    (a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based assessment 
tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full literacy 
skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or 
writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language 
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
    (b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and 
accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the 
specific needs of such students;
    (c) Provide families of such students with information to assist 
such students;
    (d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for 
teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and 
specialized instructional support personnel to--
    (1) Understand early indicators of students at risk of not 
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia 
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, 
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
    (2) Use evidence-based screening assessments for early 
identification of such students beginning not later than kindergarten; 
\1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants are encouraged to identify or develop 
professional development for using evidence-based screening 
assessments for early identification of children in early childhood 
or prekindergarten programs as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Implement evidence-based instruction designed to meet the 
specific needs of such students; and
    (e) Disseminate the products of the comprehensive center to 
regionally diverse SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools, including, as 
appropriate, through partnerships with other comprehensive centers 
established under section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance 
Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), and regional educational laboratories 
established under section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 
2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564).
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address current and emerging training and information needs of 
SEAs, REAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, and practitioners to select and 
implement teacher classroom and remote learning environment evidence-
based practices (EBPs) that will improve literacy outcomes for students 
with disabilities, including students with dyslexia impacting reading 
or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language 
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of current and emerging EBPs, which can 
be used in reading and literacy-related teacher classroom and remote 
learning environment instruction, screening, assessment, and 
identification or diagnosis of students at risk for not attaining full 
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting 
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, 
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This 
includes demonstrating knowledge of current and emerging reading and 
literacy-related EBPs for students who are English learners; students 
from a variety of settings (e.g., rural, suburban, urban); students 
from low-income families; and other educationally disadvantaged 
students; or
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of, previous experience with, and 
results of using creative approaches and implementing in-person and 
virtual TA strategies to provide capacity-building services and 
disseminate teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs to a 
variety of entities, including parents, SEAs, REAs, LEAs, schools, Head 
Start, and other early childhood programs;
    (2) Demonstrate a record of improving outcomes in literacy 
achievement for students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills 
due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, 
or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, 
comprehension, or executive functioning, in order to better prepare 
them to compete in a global economy; and
    (3) Demonstrate a record of improving the adoption, implementation, 
and sustainment of teacher classroom and remote learning environment 
EBPs in literacy instruction for students at risk for not attaining 
full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting 
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, 
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under

[[Page 14051]]

``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, sex, 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 short-term, 
intermediate, and long-term outcomes. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must provide--
    (i) A five-year plan for the Center to identify current and 
emerging training and information needs and to address the priority;
    (ii) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (iii) 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 
short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes of the proposed 
project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, and describe any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, 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, www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework, and 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-04-04/pdf/2019-06583.pdf.

    (4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs in the 
development and delivery of its products and services. To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning 
environment EBPs for literacy instruction for students at risk for not 
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia 
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, 
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning; 
and
    (ii) The current research about adult learning principles in in-
person and virtual settings and implementation science that will inform 
the proposed TA; and
    (5) Develop products or refine or update publicly available 
existing products and provide in-person and virtual services that are 
of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the 
intended measurable outcomes of the proposed project. To address this 
requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in 
teacher classroom and remote learning environment literacy instruction 
for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a 
disability;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, which must 
identify--
    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach, a description of new or existing publicly available products 
that may be used and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those 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, which must 
identify--
    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description 
of new or existing publicly available products that may be used and 
services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected 
impact of those products and services under this approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the target 
audiences 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, REA, LEA, school, and early childhood education program 
levels;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, REAs, and LEAs to build 
or enhance in-person and virtual training systems that include 
capacity-building services and professional development based on adult 
learning principles and coaching; and
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, 
schools, early childhood education programs, families) to ensure that 
there is communication between each level and that there are systems in 
place to support the use of teacher classroom and remote learning 
environment EBPs for literacy instruction;
    (6) Partner with the National Comprehensive Center and at least one 
of the other federally funded comprehensive centers, regional 
educational laboratories, equity assistance centers, OSEP- and other 
related federally funded TA Centers, parent training and information 
and community parent resource centers funded by the Department and OSEP 
(e.g., Center for Parent Information and Resources and Parent Technical 
Assistance Centers), and other related organizations to refine or 
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 in-person and virtual 
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. The evaluation plan must--
    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions, that are 
linked directly to the project's proposed logic model required in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this notice;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project short-term, intermediate, and long-term 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;

[[Page 14052]]

    (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
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in collaboration 
with a ``third-party'' evaluator and 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 ensure equal access for employment 
for all, including those who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, sex, age, religion, or disability;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications, subject-matter expertise, and 
technical experience to carry out the proposed activities, achieve the 
project's intended outcomes, and develop ongoing partnerships with 
leading experts and organizations nationwide to inform project 
activities;
    (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. The identified 
project director should be, at minimum, 0.5 full-time equivalency 
throughout the project period;
    (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, general and special 
education teachers, TA providers, researchers, institutions of higher 
education, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following additional 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;
    (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, OESE 
staff, 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 a virtual conference, during each year of the 
project period;
    (iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (iv) At least monthly, communicate and collaborate with other 
Department-funded centers to achieve project objectives;
    (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) Include a plan for maintaining a high-quality website, with an 
easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized 
standards for accessibility;
    (5) Include a plan for ensuring that annual project progress toward 
meeting project goals is posted on the project website;
    (6) Include, in Appendix A, a letter of agreement from each 
partnering organization or consultant. The letter of agreement should 
clearly specify the role of the partnering organization or consultant 
and the time needed to fulfill the commitment to the project; and
    (7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP and OESE 
with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain 
the continuity of services to target audiences during the transition to 
this new award period and at the end of this award period, as 
appropriate.

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 Requirement

    Background: We propose a requirement for this grant competition 
that would limit the reimbursement of indirect costs based on its 
modified total direct cost (MTDC) base, as defined in 2 CFR 200.68. The 
cap would apply to indirect administrative costs for grantees and 
subrecipients.
    This requirement is 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 head based on 
documented justification when the Federal awarding

[[Page 14053]]

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 
cognizant Federal agency, and we believe that use of the negotiated 
rate is appropriate for most grants in most circumstances. However, we 
would limit the indirect costs to maximize the availability of funds to 
provide TA to a variety of stakeholders and to meet the needs of 
students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a 
disability, including dyslexia.
    Requirement: Indirect costs are limited to no more than 35 percent 
of costs, based on a modified total direct cost (MTDC) base, as defined 
in 2 CFR 200.68.

Proposed Definitions

    We propose the following definitions for use with the proposed 
priority. We propose these definitions to ensure that applicants have a 
clear understanding of how we are using these terms. We propose to use 
some definitions the Department has adopted elsewhere and provide the 
source of existing definitions in parentheses.
    Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an 
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous 
improvement and achieve expected outcomes. (Final Priorities, 
Requirements, Definitions, and Performance Measures; Comprehensive 
Centers Program (84 FR 13122), April 4, 2019)
    Fidelity means the delivery of instruction in the way in which it 
was designed to be delivered. (Final Priorities and Definitions; State 
Personnel Development Grants (77 FR 45944), August 2, 2012)
    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. 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.
    Regional educational agency, for the purposes of this program, 
means ``Tribal Educational Agency'' as defined in ESEA section 
6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve regional 
areas. (Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance 
Measures; Comprehensive Centers Program (84 FR 13122), April 4, 2019)
    TA services are defined as negotiated series of activities designed 
to reach a valued outcome.
    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.
    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.
    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.

Final Priority, Requirement, and Definitions

    We will announce the final priority, requirement, and definitions 
in a document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final 
priority, requirement, and definitions after considering public 
comments and other information available to the Department. 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 proposed priority, requirement, and 
definitions, we will 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) determines 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.
    OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    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

[[Page 14054]]

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 proposed priority, requirement, and definitions 
based on a reasoned determination that the benefits would justify the 
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 would 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.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments 
on how to make the proposed priority, requirement, and definitions 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section.
    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 (SBA) 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.
    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. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, 
including Indian Tribes and institutions of higher education that may 
apply. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the 
proposed priority, requirement, and definitions would be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the 
benefits of the proposed priority, requirement, and definitions would 
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. There are very few 
entities who could provide the type of TA required under the proposed 
priority. For these reasons the proposed priority, requirement, and 
definitions would not impose a burden on a significant number of small 
entities.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The proposed priority, 
requirement, and definitions contain information collection 
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006.
    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: On request to the contact person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can 
obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

David Cantrell,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the 
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
Mark Washington,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-05247 Filed 3-10-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P