[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41250-41256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2022-OSERS-0038]


Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--The Rhonda Weiss National Technical Assistance Center 
To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
IDEA Data in Accessible Formats

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

ACTION: Final priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority, 
including requirements, for the Rhonda Weiss National Technical 
Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, 
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data in Accessible Formats (Accessible 
Data Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program, Assistance Listing Number 84.373Q. The Department may use this 
priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and thereafter. We

[[Page 41251]]

will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for an 
Accessible Data Center to focus attention on an identified need to 
support States in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and publishing 
their data in formats that provide equitable access and visualizations 
to persons with disabilities, particularly those with blindness, visual 
impairments, motor impairments, and intellectual disabilities. The 
Accessible Data Center will customize its technical assistance (TA) to 
meet each State's specific needs.

DATES: The final priority and requirements are effective August 11, 
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Smith, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5038B, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 258-9436. Email: 
[email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Part B and 
Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA. 
This section gives the Secretary authority to reserve not more than \1/
2\ of 1 percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each 
fiscal year to provide TA activities authorized under section 616(i) of 
IDEA, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and 
reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount 
the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is 
$25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. For FY 
2022, the inflation adjusted amount is $37,300,000. Section 616(i) of 
IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis 
capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined 
necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, 
analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires 
the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of 
States to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C data collection requirements, 
which include the data collection and reporting requirements in 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, gives the Secretary 
authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to provide 
TA to States to improve their capacity to administer and carry out 
other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, 
quality, and use under Parts B and C of IDEA.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442; and 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 
Stat. 1182, 1601.
    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.
    We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) 
for this program in the Federal Register on March 17, 2022 (87 FR 
15148). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the particular priority, including the requirements.
    There are no differences between the proposed priority and the 
final priority other than minor technical changes.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, seven 
parties submitted comments on the priority, including the requirements.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the priority.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments 
follows.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed general support for the 
proposed Accessible Data Center.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the proposed 
Accessible Data Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter responded to our directed question about 
common challenges experienced by stakeholders with disabilities, 
particularly those with blindness, visual impairments, motor 
impairments, and intellectual disabilities, when accessing educational 
data on government websites. The commenter noted that many persons with 
visual and/or intellectual disabilities have trouble accessing 
information that is in either a table or graphical format because many 
screen readers do not recognize the information contained within, and 
magnifiers have limited utility.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that screen readers and 
magnifiers alone are often insufficient for many persons with 
disabilities, particularly those with visual and/or intellectual 
disabilities, but also those with motor impairments. We also note that 
it is challenging to view data columns using screen readers and, when 
using magnifiers, heading and column descriptors do not automatically 
move when scrolling through Excel pages. Similarly, it can be difficult 
for persons with visual impairments to read and interpret charts and 
graphs that rely on chromatically similar colors to differentiate 
between data series, or where shading is not used to delineate the 
lines. Under the priority, applicants must propose tools they will 
develop, based on accessibility best practices, that exceed all Federal 
accessibility requirements. For this reason, we do not feel additional 
specification in the priority is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter responded to our directed question about 
accessibility features and interactive elements of a data reporting 
system that are necessary to allow stakeholders with disabilities, 
particularly those with blindness, visual impairments, motor 
impairments, and intellectual disabilities, to access and use data to 
answer their essential questions. The commenter stated that necessary 
accessibility features include text-to-speech/screen reader, speech 
recognition, high contrast themes, magnifiers, keyboard shortcuts, sans 
serif fonts, and closed captioning on all videos referenced or used.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's response to the directed 
question. We agree with the commenter's list of accessibility features 
and interactive elements of a data reporting system to allow 
stakeholders with disabilities to access and use data to answer their 
essential questions. We note that the accessibility features and 
interactive elements identified by the commenter are consistent with 
current Federal accessibility requirements. Under the priority, 
applicants must propose tools they will develop, based on accessibility 
best practices, that exceed all Federal accessibility requirements and 
are designed to accommodate continued enhancements to meet States' 
changing needs and updates in accessibility best practice.
    Changes: None.
    FINAL PRIORITY:

[[Page 41252]]

    Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--The Rhonda Weiss \1\ 
National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data in Accessible 
Formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Center is named in remembrance of Rhonda Weiss, who was 
a senior attorney with the U.S. Department of Education, a staunch 
advocate for disability rights, and a champion for ensuring equity 
and accessibility for persons with disabilities. For more 
information on Rhonda and her work to ensure equity and 
accessibility for persons with disabilities please see 
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/13/blind-government-lawyer-disabilities-rights/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this priority, the Department provides funding for a 
cooperative agreement to establish and operate the Rhonda Weiss 
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data in Accessible 
Formats (Accessible Data Center).
    The Accessible Data Center will provide TA to help States better 
meet current and future IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and 
reporting requirements, improve data quality, and analyze and use the 
data reported to provide equitable access and visualizations to persons 
with disabilities. The Accessible Data Center's work will comply with 
the privacy and confidentiality protections in the IDEA Part B and C 
regulations, which incorporate provisions in the Family Educational 
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and include IDEA-specific provisions and 
will not provide the Department with access to child-level data. The 
Accessible Data Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following 
expected outcomes:
    (a) Improved accessibility of the IDEA Part B and Part C data 
reported and published under IDEA sections 616 and 618;
    (b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C data in accessible formats;
    (c) Development of an open license, accessible software program, 
for the publication of dynamic data products (consistent with the open 
licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20); and
    (d) Development and documentation of a knowledge base related to 
the accessible reporting and dynamic presentation of data.
    In addition, the Accessible Data Center must provide a range of 
targeted and general TA products and services for improving States' 
capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 
616 and section 618 data in accessible formats for persons with 
disabilities, particularly those with blindness, visual impairments, 
motor impairments, and intellectual disabilities. Such TA must include, 
at a minimum--
    (a) Working with the Department to develop open-source electronic 
tools to assist States in reporting their IDEA data in accessible 
formats that allow for dynamic visualizations that can be manipulated 
for persons with and without disabilities. The tools must utilize 
accessibility best practices, exceed all Federal accessibility 
requirements, and be designed to accommodate continued enhancements to 
meet States' changing needs and updates in accessibility best practice;
    (b) Developing a plan to maintain appropriate functionality of the 
open-source electronic tools described in paragraph (a) as changes are 
made to data collections, reporting requirements, accessibility best 
practices, and accessibility requirements;
    (c) Developing universal TA products, including a user manual and 
instructions, and conducting training with State staff on use of the 
open-source electronic tools; and
    (d) Developing white papers and presentations that include tools 
and solutions to challenges in the collection, reporting, analysis, and 
use of IDEA data in accessible formats.
    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 of the Project,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, reporting, 
and using the IDEA Part B and Part C data reported under IDEA sections 
616 and 618 in formats that are both accessible to persons with visual 
impairments and/or other disabilities and also dynamic, to promote 
enhanced data use that will improve data quality and identify 
programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. To meet this 
requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data 
required under IDEA sections 616 and 618;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of accessible reporting and dynamic 
visualization, and document areas for further knowledge development;
    (iii) Present information about the difficulties State educational 
agencies (SEAs), State lead agencies (LAs), local educational agencies 
(LEAs), early intervention service (EIS) providers, and schools have 
encountered in meeting the requirements of section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act when reporting IDEA data; and
    (iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, State LAs, 
LEAs, EIS providers, and schools have in developing dynamic data 
visualizations for public use; and
    (2) Improve outcomes in collecting, analyzing, reporting, and using 
the IDEA Part B and Part C data in formats that are accessible to 
persons with visual impairments and/or other 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 and end users for 
TA and information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended TA recipients and end users;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research and use evidence-based practices 
(EBPs).\2\

[[Page 41253]]

To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs, State LAs, LEAs, 
and EIS providers to report and use data, specifically section 616 and 
section 618 data, in a manner that allows persons with vision and/or 
other disabilities, as well as those without, to access and dynamically 
manipulate data, as both a means of improving data quality and 
identifying strengths and areas for improvement;
    (ii) How it will analyze and incorporate the views of end users 
regarding the accessibility of tools currently available for data 
collection, reporting, analysis, and use. Specifically, how it will 
assess the overall accessibility, data manipulability, and the 
accessibility of dynamic data visualizations for persons with and 
without disabilities; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research, 
EBPs, and the needs of end users in the development and delivery of its 
products and services;
    (5) How it will 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 
the capacity needs of SEAs, State LAs, LEAs, and EIS programs/EIS 
providers to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements, data 
analysis, and use of the IDEA Part B and Part C data reported under 
IDEA sections 616 and 618 in a manner that allows individuals with 
vision and/or other disabilities, as well as those without, to access 
and dynamically manipulate data;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with Accessible Data Center staff and including 
one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by Accessible 
Data Center staff. This category of TA also includes information or 
products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, 
downloaded from the Accessible Data Center's website by independent 
users. Brief communications by Accessible Data Center staff with 
recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered 
universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\4\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more Accessible Data Center staff. This 
category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as 
facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national 
conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive 
events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a 
series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are 
designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating 
communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized 
TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach; and
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\5\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between 
Accessible Data 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, State 
LAs, LEA, and EIS program/provider 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, State LA, LEA, and EIS 
program/provider levels;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and State LAs (and LEAs, 
in conjunction with SEAs and EIS programs/providers, in conjunction 
with State LAs) to build or enhance training systems to meet IDEA Part 
B and Part C data collection and reporting requirements in a manner 
that allows individuals with vision and/or other disabilities, as well 
as those without, to access and dynamically manipulate data. This 
includes 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, State LAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, 
EIS providers, schools, and families) to ensure there is communication 
between each level and there are systems in place to support the 
capacity needs of SEAs, State LAs, LEAs, and EIS providers to meet IDEA 
data collection and reporting requirements, as well as support data 
analysis and the use of IDEA Part B and Part C data, in a manner that 
allows individuals with vision and/or other disabilities, as well as 
those without, to access and dynamically manipulate data; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States, where appropriate, to align complementary work and 
jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the 
purposes of this priority. Such Department-funded projects include the 
IDEA Data Center (IDC), the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data 
Systems (DaSy), the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting (CIFR), the Center 
for the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID), EdFacts, and the research and 
development investments of the Institute of Education Sciences/National 
Center for Education Statistics; and
    (6) Its proposed plan to develop products and implement services 
that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, or have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;

[[Page 41254]]

    (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 and at the end of Year 2 for the review process; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one- and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or 
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting 
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the Office of Special Education 
Programs (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; 
and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend 
Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other 
meetings, as requested by OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility; and
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a 
rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy,

[[Page 41255]]

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a 
material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant'' 
rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as 
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the final priority only on a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net 
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes 
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in 
Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that the costs associated with the final 
priority will be minimal, while the benefits are significant. The 
Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose 
significant costs on eligible entities. Participation in this program 
is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory 
action will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application. The benefits of implementing the program to focus 
attention on an identified need to improve State capacity to accurately 
collect, report, analyze, and use the IDEA Part B and Part C data 
reported under IDEA sections 616 and 618, in accessible formats for 
persons with disabilities, will outweigh the costs incurred by 
applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with 
the application will be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, 
we have determined that the costs of implementation will not be 
burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the priority is needed to administer 
the program effectively.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priority contains information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under control number 1820-0028; the final 
priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary 
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and 
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total 
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as 
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not 
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined 
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing 
a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect 
are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State 
law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private 
nonprofit organizations; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and 
for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an 
applicant by the final priority will be limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this final 
priority will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Accessible Data Center grant program is 
voluntary. For this reason, the final priority will impose no burden on 
small entities unless they apply for funding under the program. We 
expect that in determining whether to apply for Accessible Data Center 
funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing 
an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the 
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a grant to establish and 
operate the Accessible Data Center. An eligible entity will most likely 
apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs 
of preparing an application.
    We believe that the final priority will not impose any additional 
burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would 
face in the absence of the final action. That is, the length of the 
applications those entities would submit in the absence of the final 
regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application will 
likely be the same.

[[Page 41256]]

    This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be 
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under 
this program.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at 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.

Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, delegated the authority to perform the 
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-14852 Filed 7-8-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P