[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15830-15837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2021-OSERS-0018]


Proposed Priorities--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.

[[Page 15831]]


ACTION: Proposed priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes two funding 
priorities for a National Assessment Center under the Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 
Children with Disabilities program and under the Technical Assistance 
on State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number 84.326G. 
The Department may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year 
(FY) 2021 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an 
identified need to address national, State, and local assessment issues 
related to students with disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment 
period. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure 
that we do not receive duplicate copies. 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 priorities, address 
them to David Egnor, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW, Room 5163, 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: David Egnor, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334. 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 
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.\1\ To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final priorities, we urge you to clearly identify the 
specific topic that each comment addresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under section 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA), the Secretary may, without regard to 
rulemaking, fund activities under Proposed Priority 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 priorities. 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 priorities by accessing Regulations.gov. 
Due to the 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 5163, 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 priorities. 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 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 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) 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.

Proposed Priorities

    This notice contains two proposed priorities. In accordance with 34 
CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed Priority 2 are 
from allowable activities specified or otherwise authorized in the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (see sections 663 
and 681(d) of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)). In addition, 
Proposed Priority 2 is from allowable activities in sections 611(c) and 
616(i) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 1416(i)) and the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021, Div. H, Title III of Public Law 116-260, 134 
Stat. 1182.

Proposed Priority 1: Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve 
Services and Results for Children With Disabilities--National 
Assessment Center

    Background: Section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA requires that all 
students with disabilities are included in all general State and 
districtwide assessments, including assessments described under section 
1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended 
(ESEA), with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where 
necessary and as indicated in their respective individualized education 
programs. In accordance with Federal law, there are several ways for 
students with disabilities to participate appropriately in State and 
districtwide assessments: General assessments without accommodations, 
general assessments

[[Page 15832]]

with accommodations, and alternate assessments that are based on 
alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most 
significant cognitive disabilities with or without accommodations as 
necessary.
    Despite the progress State educational agencies (SEAs) and local 
educational agencies (LEAs) have made in including students with 
disabilities in assessments and accountability systems, SEAs and LEAs 
continue to face challenges, such as (1) integrating data from 
dissimilar tests (e.g., general without accommodations, general with 
accommodations, alternate) into a single accountability system; (2) 
developing consistent SEA and LEA policies on assessment accommodations 
that provide maximum accessibility while maintaining test reliability 
and validity; (3) analyzing and using diagnostic, interim,\2\ and 
summative assessment data to improve instruction, learning, and 
accountability for students with disabilities; and (4) addressing test 
security, accessibility, technical support, and other challenges 
associated with transitioning from traditional paper-and-pencil 
assessments to digitally-based assessments (DBAs), including DBAs that 
can be delivered via distance education and other remote service 
delivery models of instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purposes of this priority, the term ``interim 
assessments'' refer to assessments that are administered several 
times during a school year to measure progress. Another term that is 
sometimes used to describe these assessments is ``formative 
assessments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, one of the most complex challenges faced by SEAs and 
LEAs is developing and administering English language proficiency (ELP) 
assessments to students who are both English learners (ELs) and 
students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). 
Properly identifying these students is also a significant challenge if 
their disabilities are masked by their limited English proficiency, or 
vice versa. Improper identification may lead to inappropriate 
instruction, assessments, and accommodations for these students. 
Linguistic and cultural biases may also affect the validity of 
assessments for ELs with disabilities.
    Finally, the Department notes that in many schools, there may be 
unnecessary testing or unclear purpose applied to the task of assessing 
students, including students with disabilities, that consumes too much 
instructional time and creates undue stress for educators and students. 
(For more information, see the Department's February 2, 2016, letter to 
Chief State School Officers available at www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16-0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf.)
    These and other complex challenges will continue to arise as States 
continue to implement, revise, or adopt new challenging academic 
content standards and develop new, valid, more instructionally useful, 
and inclusive assessments aligned to these standards. Developing these 
new assessments has been and will continue to be challenging and time-
consuming, and States and LEAs need support in identifying and 
implementing effective practices for identifying and including children 
with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments. Moreover, 
methods for analyzing and effectively using State and districtwide 
assessment data to improve instruction, learning, and accountability 
for students with disabilities will continue to need further 
development, refinement, and technical support.
    Proposed Priority: The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund 
a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of a 
National Assessment Center (Center) to address national, State, and 
local assessment issues related to students with disabilities. The 
Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes to 
ensure the inclusion of students with disabilities in State and 
districtwide assessments and accountability systems:
    Knowledge Development Outcomes.
    (a) Increased body of knowledge on practices supported by evidence 
to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate relevant information 
regarding State and districtwide assessments of students with 
disabilities, including on topics such as--
    (1) The inclusion of students with disabilities in accountability 
systems;
    (2) Assessment accommodations;
    (3) Alternate assessments;
    (4) Universal design of assessments;
    (5) Technology-based assessments, including DBAs;
    (6) Interim assessments;
    (7) Competency-based assessments;
    (8) Performance-based assessments;
    (9) Methods for analyzing and reporting assessment data (including 
methods for addressing assessment data interoperability challenges);
    (10) Application of growth models in assessment programs;
    (11) Uses of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to 
inform instructional programs for students with disabilities; and
    (12) Identifying and assessing ELs with disabilities, including 
ensuring that all ELs with disabilities receive appropriate 
accommodations, as needed, on ELP assessments, and that the results of 
ELP assessments for students with disabilities are validly used in 
making accountability determinations under the ESEA.
    (b) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to assess SEA and 
LEA needs, and track SEA and LEA activities and trends, related to 
including students with disabilities in State and districtwide 
assessments, including, as appropriate, improving the knowledge and 
skills of SEA and LEA personnel related to any of the topics listed in 
paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Outcomes section of the 
proposed priority.
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Outcomes.
    (a) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to collect and 
analyze diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data on the 
performance of students with disabilities, including ELs with 
disabilities.
    (b) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to use diagnostic, 
interim, and summative assessment data to evaluate and improve 
educational policies and increase accountability for students with 
disabilities, including ELs with disabilities.
    (c) Increased capacity of LEA personnel to use diagnostic, interim, 
and summative assessment results in instructional decision-making to 
improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities, including 
ELs with disabilities.
    (d) Increased awareness of national policymakers regarding how 
students with disabilities are included in and benefit from current and 
emerging approaches to State and districtwide assessment, including 
topics listed in paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Outcomes 
section of this priority.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements under Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed 
Priority 2 Common Elements.

Proposed Priority 2: 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

    Background: The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist States in 
the analysis and use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment 
data to support the implementation of States' State-Identified 
Measurable Results

[[Page 15833]]

(SIMR) as described in their State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP); 
and (2) support State efforts to provide TA to LEAs in the analysis and 
use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to support 
the implementation of the SIMR, as appropriate.
    As detailed in the background section for Proposed Priority 1, 
research indicates that SEAs and LEAs continue to face challenges in 
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data 
to improve instruction, learning, and accountability for students with 
disabilities. SEAs also need assistance analyzing State assessment data 
submitted as part of the SSIP and the SIMR in accordance with section 
616 of IDEA and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 
guidance. Beginning in the IDEA Part B Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 
State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR), States were 
required to provide, as part of Phase I of the SSIP, a statement of the 
result(s) the State intends to achieve through implementation of the 
SSIP, which is referred to as the SIMR for Children with Disabilities. 
States were required to establish ``measurable and rigorous'' targets 
for their SIMRs for each successive year of the SPP (FFYs 2014 through 
2019) and will be required to do so for each year of the next SPP (FFYs 
2020 through 2025) as part of their SPP/APR submissions. At least 36 
States have focused their SIMRs on improving academic achievement as 
measured by assessment results for children with disabilities. These 
States will need assistance in analyzing and using State and 
districtwide assessment data to promote academic achievement and to 
improve results for children with disabilities.
    Proposed Priority: The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist 
those States that have a SIMR related to assessment results in 
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data 
to better achieve the SIMR as described in their IDEA Part B SSIPs; and 
(2) assist State efforts to provide TA to 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 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 SSIP, including using diagnostic, interim, and 
summative assessment data to evaluate and improve educational policy, 
inform instructional programs, and improve instruction for students 
with disabilities; and
    (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.
    In addition to these program requirements, to be considered for 
funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and 
administrative requirements under Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed 
Priority 2 Common Elements.

Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed Priority 2 Common Elements

    In addition to the program requirements contained in both 
priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the 
following application and administrative requirements,\3\ which are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Paragraph (b)(5)(ii) applies only to Proposed Priority 1. 
Paragraph (b)(5)(iv) applies only to Proposed Priority 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 \4\ 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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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: 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 \5\ 
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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

[[Page 15834]]

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,\6\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``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,\7\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA service 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,\8\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``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 the priorities;
    (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.\9\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 Priority 1 and Priority 2 
Common Elements;
    (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

[[Page 15835]]

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;
    (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; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 
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) 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)).

Final Priorities

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

    Note:  This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, 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) 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

[[Page 15836]]

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 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 these proposed priorities based on a reasoned 
determination that their 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. In summary, the potential costs 
associated with these priorities would be minimal, while the potential 
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 potential benefits of 
implementing the program would 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.
    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.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priorities contain information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the 
proposed priorities do not affect the currently approved data 
collection.

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 
priorities 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 this 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.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools 
that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher education; 
other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; and 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 priorities would be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the 
benefits of the proposed priorities would outweigh any costs incurred 
by the applicant.

[[Page 15837]]

    Participation in the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to 
Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is 
voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priorities 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 and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 
Children with Disabilities 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 and Dissemination to 
Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities 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 priorities 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 eligible small 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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or 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.

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.
[FR Doc. 2021-06264 Filed 3-23-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P