```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21663-21668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2014-OSERS-0053]

Proposed Priority--Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection--IDEA Data Management Center

[CFDA Number: 84.373M.]

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education 
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) proposes a funding priority under 
the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. The 
Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal 
year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus attention 
on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 1, 2014.

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 ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about this proposed priority, address 
them to Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 4071, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 
20202-2600.
    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.

[[Page 21664]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miceli. Telephone: (202) 245-
6028 or by email: Meredith.Miceli@ed.gov.
    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 
this proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the final priority, we urge you to clearly 
identify the specific topic that each comment addresses.
    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 this 
proposed priority. 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 this notice in room 4071, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.
    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 this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet the IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for 
the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives 
the Secretary the authority to reserve funds appropriated under Part B 
of the IDEA to provide TA activities authorized under section 616(i) of 
IDEA. 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 IDEA section 616 
are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It 
also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements under IDEA 
Parts B and C, which include the data collection requirements in IDEA 
sections 616 and 618.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), and 
1442.

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
    Proposed Priority:
    This notice contains one proposed priority.
    IDEA Data Management Center.
    Background:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center 
(Center) to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes: (a) 
Improve States' data management procedures and data systems 
architecture \1\ to build data files and reports to improve States' 
capacity to meet the Part B reporting requirements under sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA; and (b) improve States' capacity to utilize their 
statewide longitudinal data systems \2\ (SLDS) to report high-quality 
data under IDEA Part B required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The 
Center's work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality 
protections in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 
and IDEA and will not provide the Department with access to child-level 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Data architecture is a set of rules, policies, standards 
and models that govern and define the type of data collected and how 
it's used, stored, managed and integrated within an organization and 
its database systems. It provides a formal approach to creating and 
managing the flow of data and how it's processed across the 
organization's IT systems and applications.'' Techopedia. Retrieved 
from www.techopedia.com/definition/29452/data-architect.
    \2\ The term statewide longitudinal data system refers to ``a 
data system that collects and maintains detailed, high quality, 
student- and staff-level data that are linked across entities over 
time, providing a complete academic and performance history for each 
student; and makes these data accessible through reporting and 
analysis tools.'' Data Quality Campaign. (2012). Retrieved from 
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/2013_DQC_Data_for_Action_Survey_Glossary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a need to assist States in restructuring their existing, 
often fragmented, data systems and in aligning their data collection 
for students with disabilities to their data collection for the general 
student population in the SLDS so that States can improve the validity 
and reliability of the data they report to the Secretary and the public 
as required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.
    Currently, most students with disabilities are educated in the same 
settings as students without disabilities; however, the majority of 
States continue to treat data about students with disabilities as 
separate from the data for students without disabilities. States are 
using alternate data collections to build reports to meet the reporting 
requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA (e.g., discipline, 
assessment, educational environments), rather than including all data 
elements needed for Federal reporting in their SLDS.
    Based on State responses to an annual survey of State education 
metadata conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) 
during the school year (SY) 2012-2013, only 26 of the 60 State 
educational agencies (SEAs) \3\ reported that all of their IDEA Part B 
section 618 data were integrated into their student information 
system,\4\ and only 20 of the 60 SEAs reported that all of their IDEA 
Part B section 618 data were integrated into their SLDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 60 entities that receive IDEA Part B formula funds are 
the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Federated States of 
Micronesia, Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Bureau of 
Indian Education.
    \4\ The term student information system refers to ``a software 
application for education establishments to manage student data such 
as attendance, demographics, test scores, grades, or schedules in 
real time.'' Data Quality Campaign. (2012). Retrieved from 
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/2013_DQC_Data_for_Action_Survey_Glossary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, various programs, districts, and other facilities are 
using different collection processes to gather data for required data 
submissions. Federal data reports that include the same data elements 
on the same subgroups of students include data that often do not match. 
These situations hinder the States' capacity to report valid and 
reliable data to the Secretary and to the public as required by IDEA 
section 616(b)(2)(B) and to meet IDEA data collection and reporting 
requirements in IDEA sections 616 and 618.
    States with fragmented data systems are also more likely to have 
missing data. For example, if a State collects and maintains data on 
disciplinary removals of students with disabilities in a special 
education data system and maintains data on the demographics of 
students in another data system, the State may not be able to 
accurately match all data on disciplinary removals with the 
demographics data needed to meet the IDEA reporting requirements.
    The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) followed up with 14 
SEAs regarding concerns or questions about the completeness of the IDEA 
discipline data SY 2012-13 submitted to the Department. Nine of the 14 
SEAs

[[Page 21665]]

reported that they did not use, or only minimally used, their SLDS for 
purposes of IDEA section 618 reporting.
    In addition, States with fragmented systems often lack the capacity 
to cross-validate related data elements. For example, if the data on 
the type of statewide assessment in which students with disabilities 
participate is housed in one database and the grade in which students 
are enrolled is housed in another database, the State may not be able 
to accurately match the assessment data to the accurate grade level to 
meet the IDEA reporting requirements under IDEA sections 616 and 618.
    OSEP followed up with 43 SEAs regarding the completeness of the SY 
2011-12 IDEA assessment data submitted to the Department. Twenty-eight 
of the 43 SEAs reported that they did not use, or only minimally used, 
their SLDS for purposes of IDEA section 618 reporting.
    This kind of fragmentation is not limited to IDEA data. The Office 
of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) and the 
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provide assistance to 
States to meet data reporting challenges through their State Education 
Information Support Services (SEISS) project. The SEISS project 
provides support to improve the quality, comparability, timeliness, and 
usefulness of elementary and secondary education data collected by each 
SEA and reported to the Federal government via the EDFacts reporting 
system. An additional benefit is that the State can also use the 
improved data as they report to school districts, schools, and other 
agencies within the State. The SEISS work supports the collection of 
the data required by a variety of the Department's program offices 
(e.g., NCES, and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education).
    In 2013, SEISS worked with seven States to document how elementary 
and secondary education data and meta-data were collected and 
maintained for the Common Core Data (CCD) and Consolidated State 
Performance Report (CSPR) data submissions for each of the States. To 
document the States' processes, SEISS: (1) Mapped States' source 
systems related to CCD and CSPR data to the common education data 
standards (CEDS); \5\ and (2) worked across the Department to develop 
CEDS ``Connections'' \6\ related to many of the EDFacts file 
specifications associated with the CCD and CSPR data. SEISS found that: 
(1) States are using data collections other than their SLDS to build 
reports to meet Federal reporting requirements; and (2) different data 
collection processes are being used by various programs, schools, 
districts, and other facilities to gather data for required data 
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) is ``a specified 
set of the most commonly used education data elements to support the 
effective exchange of data within and across States, as students 
transition between educational sectors and levels, and for Federal 
reporting'' (National Center for Education Statistics, Common 
Education Data Standards, retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ceds/). For more information, see: http://ceds.ed.gov/Default.aspx.
    \6\ CEDS Connect tool ``allows stakeholders to generate specific 
and relevant maps to a growing pool of CEDS ``connections.'' 
Stakeholders from varied educational organizations can use the tool 
to identify policy questions and related data elements, define 
analytic approaches, calculate metrics and indicators, address 
reporting requirements, etc. CEDS Connect enables users at different 
levels to consider the metric definitions of data points such as 
graduation rate, program enrollment, or academic outcomes. By 
establishing the data elements necessary to answer a given question, 
as well as recommended logic and routines for analysis, CEDS Connect 
is designed to help the education data community work together 
towards standard definitions and methodologies that will provide 
common, comparable data measurements and reporting that can cross 
districts, States, and educational agencies'' (Common Education Data 
Standards, retrieved from https://ceds.ed.gov/pdf/ceds-101.pdf). For 
more information on CEDS Connections, see: https://ceds.ed.gov/connect.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Center will use the lessons learned from the SEISS 
project and similar data management improvement efforts to build and 
improve States' capacity to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting 
requirements by integrating data on students with disabilities into 
SLDS. OSEP will work with NCEDS and its TA providers to prevent 
duplication of efforts between SEISS and this proposed IDEA Data 
Management Center.
    The Center will also work with other TA centers funded by OSEP. 
OSEP currently funds the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems 
(DaSy Center, $6.5 million per year), which focuses on helping States 
build an early childhood data infrastructure to meet IDEA early 
childhood data collection requirements, and the IDEA Data Center (IDC, 
$6.5 million per year), which focuses on assisting States with 
developing necessary data validation processes and procedures to ensure 
high quality IDEA data submissions. Finally, all TA conducted by the 
IDEA Data Management Center will be coordinated with other relevant 
Federal data efforts to help States incorporate best practices in data 
management, reporting, confidentiality and other aspects of data 
systems (e.g., SLDS Program, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, 
and the CEDS initiative).
    Proposed Priority:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center 
(Center) to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes: (a) 
Improve States' data management procedures and data systems 
architecture to build data files and reports to improve States' 
capacity to meet the Part B reporting requirements under sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA; and (b) improve States' capacity to utilize their SLDS 
to report high-quality data under IDEA Part B as required under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The Center's work will comply with the 
privacy and confidentiality protections in FERPA and IDEA and will not 
provide the Department with access to child-level data.
    Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the 
IDEA Data Management Center at a minimum, must:
    Knowledge Development Activities in Year One.
    (a) Document the methods of collecting, processing, and reporting 
the IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data for the 60 SEAs. The 
documentation must align the data used by the States to meet the Part B 
IDEA data to CEDS.
    (b) Analyze the methods of collection, processing, and reporting 
the Part B IDEA data for commonalities and challenges and identify 
States in need of intensive or targeted TA.
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities.
    (a) Provide intensive TA \7\ to at least 10 States to improve their 
ability to utilize SLDS as sources for reporting Part B data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The Center should use information 
obtained through the activities described under paragraph (a) of the 
Knowledge Development Activities section of this priority to inform the 
intensive TA, which should be focused on States that are not using 
their SLDS to report their IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``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.

    Note: Applicants must describe the methods and criteria they 
will use to recruit and select States for intensive TA. The Center 
must obtain approval from OSEP on the final selection of intensive 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TA States.

    (b) Provide a range of targeted and general TA products and 
services for improving States' capacity to report high-quality Part B 
data required under

[[Page 21666]]

sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Such TA should include, at a minimum:
    (1) Working with the Department to develop open source electronic 
tools to assist States in building EDFacts data files and reports that 
can be submitted to the Department and made available to the public. 
The tools should utilize CEDS and meet all States' and entities' needs 
associated with reporting the Part B data required under sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA;
    (2) Developing a plan to maintain the appropriate functionality of 
the open source electronic tools described in paragraph (1) as changes 
are made to data collections, reporting requirements, file 
specifications, and CEDS;
    (3) Conducting training with State staff to use the open source 
electronic tools;
    (4) Developing CEDS ``Connections'' \8\ to calculate metrics needed 
to report the Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information on CEDS Connections, see: https://ceds.ed.gov/connect.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Developing white papers and presentations that include tools 
and solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data 
system architecture for reporting the Part B data required under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.
    Coordination Activities.
    (a) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States, such as IDC, DaSy, the CEDS initiative, the SLDS 
program, and the Privacy Technical Assistance Center; and
    (b) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP project officer.
    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. OSEP encourages 
innovative approaches to meet these requirements, 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, and 
accurately reporting valid and reliable IDEA data on State data 
management procedures and data systems architecture and in building 
EDFacts data files and reports for timely reporting of the IDEA data to 
the Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant 
must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections and EDFacts file 
specifications for the IDEA data collection; and
    (ii) Present information about the difficulties that States have 
encountered in the collection and submission of valid and reliable IDEA 
data;
    (2) Result in improved IDEA data collection and reporting.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Achieve the project's goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. 
To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its 
intended outcomes;
    (2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and 
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, 
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed 
relationships or linkages among them, and any empirical support for 
this framework;
    (3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) The current research on the effectiveness of IDEA data 
collection strategies, data management procedures, and data systems 
architectures;
    (ii) How the current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research 
and evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its 
products and services;
    (4) 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 will develop knowledge of States' data management 
processes and data systems architecture;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA \9\ for the 60 
SEAs;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``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 Web site 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,\10\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``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 of 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 educational agency (LEA) level, as appropriate;
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must 
identify--
    (A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs to 
work with the proposed project including the SEA's commitment to the 
initiative, fit of the initiatives, current infrastructure, available 
resources, and ability to build capacity at the LEA level, as 
appropriate; and
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build training systems 
that include professional development based on adult learning 
principles and coaching.
    (5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the 
project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration.
    (c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Evaluation Plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will collect and analyze data on specific 
and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project. 
To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its--
    (i) Proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data 
collection methods, and analyses; and
    (ii) Proposed standards of effectiveness;

[[Page 21667]]

    (2) The proposed project will use the evaluation results to examine 
the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward 
achieving the intended outcomes; and
    (3) The methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project achieved the 
intended outcomes.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of Project 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.
    (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) How key project personnel and any consultants and 
subcontractors will be allocated to the project 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; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, 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 of the application a logic model that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of 
the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will 
achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the 
formative and summative evaluations of the project.

    Note: The following Web sites provide more information on logic 
models: www.researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_resource3c.html and www.tadnet.org/pages/589;
    (2) Include in Appendix A of the application a conceptual 
framework for the project;
    (3) Include in Appendix A of the application person-loading 
charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management 
plan described in the narrative;
    (4) Include in the proposed budget funding for attendance at the 
following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant 
staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note:  Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
    (iii) Two annual two-day trips for Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested 
by OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, 
during the last half of the second year of the project period;
    (5) Include in the budget a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with OSEP.

    Note:  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; and
    (6) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility.

    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 Priority

    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice 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 this proposed priority, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. 
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This 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,

[[Page 21668]]

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 this proposed 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 have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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.

    Dated: April 14, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-08796 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```