Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 83531 

1Applicants should note that other laws, 

including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28 CFR part 35) and 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may 

require that State educational agencies (SEAs) and 

local educational agencies (LEAs) provide 

captioning, video description, and other accessible 

educational materials to students with disabilities 

when these materials are necessary to provide 

equally integrated and equally effective access to 

the benefits of the educational program or activity, 

or as part of a ‘‘free appropriate public education’’ 

as defined in 34 CFR 104.33. 

available to the public for any reason, 

ED will temporarily accept comments at 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please include the 

docket ID number and the title of the 

information collection request when 

requesting documents or submitting 

comments. Please note that comments 

submitted by fax or email and those 

submitted after the comment period will 

not be accepted. Written requests for 

information or comments submitted by 

postal mail or delivery should be 

addressed to the PRA Coordinator of the 

Strategic Collections and Clearance 

Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W208B, 

Washington, DC 20202–8240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

specific questions related to collection 

activities, please contact Aba Kumi, 

202–401–1767. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Education (ED), in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general 

public and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed, 

revised, and continuing collections of 

information. This helps the Department 

assess the impact of its information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. It also 

helps the public understand the 

Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. ED is 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) that 

is described below. The Department of 

Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: National Blue 

Ribbon Schools Program. 

OMB Control Number: 1860–0506. 

Type of Review: An extension to a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State, 

Local, and Tribal Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 420. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 16,695. 

Abstract: Each year since 1982, the 

U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Blue Ribbon Schools Program has 

sought out and celebrated great 

American schools; schools that are 

demonstrating that all students can 

achieve to high levels. The purpose of 

the Program is to honor public and 

private elementary, middle and high 

schools based on their overall academic 

excellence or their progress in closing 

achievement gaps among different 

groups of students. The Program is part 

of a larger U.S. Department of Education 

effort to identify and disseminate 

knowledge about best school leadership 

and teaching practices. 

Dated: December 17, 2020. 

Stephanie Valentine, 

PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and 

Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, 

Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28251 Filed 12–21–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals With 

Disabilities Program—Stepping-Up 

Technology Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) is issuing a notice inviting 

applications for new awards for fiscal 

year (FY) 2021 for Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials for 

Individuals with Disabilities—Steppingup Technology Implementation, 

Assistance Listing Number 84.327S. 

This notice relates to the approved 

information collection under OMB 

control number 1820–0028. 

DATES: 

Applications Available: December 22, 

2020. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: February 22, 2021. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: April 21, 2021. 

Pre-Application Webinar Information: 

No later than December 28, 2020, 

OSERS will post pre-recorded 

informational webinars designed to 

provide technical assistance to 

interested applicants. The webinars may 

be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/ 

apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html. 

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for 

obtaining and submitting an 

application, please refer to our Common 

Instructions for Applicants to 

Department of Education Discretionary 

Grant Programs, published in the 

Federal Register on February 13, 2019 

(84 FR 3768), and available at 

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019- 

02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

room 5128, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6039. Email: 

Terry.Jackson@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: 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The purposes of 

the Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals with 

Disabilities Program are to improve 

results for children with disabilities by: 

(1) Promoting the development, 

demonstration, and use of technology; 

(2) supporting educational activities 

designed to be of educational value in 

the classroom; (3) providing support for 

captioning and video description that is 

appropriate for use in the classroom; 

and (4) providing accessible educational 

materials to children with disabilities in 

a timely manner.1

Priority: This competition includes 

one absolute priority. In accordance 

with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this 

priority is from allowable activities 

specified in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 

681(d) of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 

U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(d). 

Absolute Priority: For FY 2021 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applications from this competition, this 

priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 

CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only 

applications that meet this priority. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83532 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 

2Promising evidence means that there is evidence 

of the effectiveness of a key project component in 

improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant 

finding from one of the following: (a) A practice 

guide prepared by the WWC reporting a ‘‘strong 

evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the 

corresponding practice recommendation; (b) an 

intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting 

a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ 

on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a 

‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on 

a relevant outcome; or (c) a single study assessed 

by the Department, as appropriate, that is an 

experimental study, a quasi-experimental design 

study, or a well-designed and well-implemented 

correlational study with statistical controls for 

selection bias (e.g., a study using regression 

methods to account for differences between a 

treatment group and a comparison group); and 

includes at least one statistically significant and 

positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant 

outcome. See 34 CFR 77.1. 

3Rural site is based on the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) revised definitions of 

school locale types that can be found at https://

nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp. Rural 

can be considered as ‘‘fringe, less than or equal to 

5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural 

territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from 

an urban cluster;’’ ‘‘distant, more than 5 miles but 

less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized 

area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 

miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an 

urban cluster;’’ or ‘‘remote, more than 25 miles from 

an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles 

from an urban cluster.’’ 

4 ‘‘Technology-based tool or approach’’ refers to 

the technology the applicant is proposing that has 

at least ‘‘promising evidence’’ with the population 

intended. 

This priority is: 

Providing Technology-Based 

Professional Development to Trainers of 

Special Education Teachers to Support 

Children with Disabilities. 

Background 

Technology has enhanced 

professional development learning 

opportunities for teachers by expanding 

access to information and resources that 

support their content expertise and 

pedagogy and promote their 

professional growth. As an alternative to 

face-to-face professional development 

that can be expensive or impracticable 

(e.g., during an emergency), professional 

development facilitated by technology 

has the potential to more efficiently 

shape and impact teaching practices. 

Some examples of the technologies that 

can be used to support teacher learning 

include, but are not limited to, virtual 

coaching, in which a coach interacts 

electronically with teachers to improve 

teaching skills; learning management 

systems (LMS) that allow sharing of 

documents and data in one central 

location; and gamification, which 

involves bringing elements associated 

with video games into the learning 

environment to increase engagement 

and making tasks challenging. 

McAleavy et al. (2018) noted that 

using technology to support teachers’ 

professional learning can promote 

collaboration through professional 

learning communities and communities 

of practice. In addition, technology that 

can be used to build the skills of 

teachers and related services personnel 

in rural or remote areas may be more 

cost-effective than face-to-face trainings 

and will offer flexibility that allows 

teachers to train at a time and place that 

suits them. 

However, regardless of the delivery, 

effective professional development must 

go beyond learning new materials and 

skills; it must also support teachers and 

related services personnel in improving 

classroom instruction and student 

learning (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003). 

Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) 

indicated that effective professional 

development should have the following 

features: (1) Be content focused, (2) 

incorporate active learning utilizing 

adult learning principles, (3) support 

collaboration, (4) use models and 

modeling of effective practices, (5) 

provide coaching and expert support, 

(6) offer opportunities for feedback and 

reflection, and (7) be of sustained 

duration. 

The Department therefore intends to 

fund three cooperative agreements to (a) 

identify strategies needed to implement 

and integrate an existing technologybased tool or approach, based on at least 

promising evidence,2 into the provision 

of teacher in-service training; and (b) 

provide ongoing technology-based 

professional development and coaching 

for in-service trainers in the use of 

technology to, and understanding of 

how the technology may support 

teachers to, improve classroom and 

remote learning environment 

instruction and learning outcomes for 

children with disabilities in prekindergarten through grade 12 (PK–12) 

settings. 

Priority 

To be considered for funding under 

this priority, applicants, at a minimum, 

must— 

(a) Build partnerships with LEAs, at 

least one of which is in a rural site 3 and 

that includes public and nonpublic 

schools, to support teacher in-service 

trainers in the understanding, use, and 

delivery of a technology-based tool or 

approach that will support teacher inservice training for instruction of 

children with disabilities in PK–12 

instructional settings, including 

classrooms and remote learning 

environments; 

(b) Increase the capacity of teacher inservice trainers to effectively use and 

deliver a technology-based tool or 

approach 4 that supports teacher 

classroom and remote learning 

environment instruction and 

professional growth; 

(c) Develop an implementation 

package of products and resources that 

will help teacher in-service trainers to 

use a technology-based tool or 

approach; and 

(d) Evaluate whether the in-service 

training conducted using the 

technology-based tool or approach 

meets the project goals and target 

outcomes. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the following application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed 

project will— 

(1) Address the need for a technologybased tool or approach and identify 

specific gaps and weaknesses, 

infrastructure, or opportunities to 

support teacher in-service training. To 

meet this requirement the applicant 

must— 

(i) Identify a fully developed 

technology-based tool or approach that 

is based on at least promising evidence; 

(ii) Identify how the technology-based 

tool or approach will improve teacher 

in-service training and the capacity of 

teachers to deliver instruction or 

services for PK–12 children with 

disabilities; 

(iii) Present applicable national, State, 

regional, or local data demonstrating the 

need for the identified technology-based 

tool or approach in teacher in-service 

training to support children with 

disabilities; 

(iv) Identify current policies, 

procedures, and practices used by 

teacher in-service trainers that 

incorporate technology-based tools or 

approaches to meet their training needs; 

(v) Identify systemic barriers, gaps, or 

challenges, including challenges using 

the identified technology-based tools or 

approaches in providing teacher inservice training; and 

(vi) Describe the potential impact of 

the identified technology-based tool or 

approach on teacher in-service trainers, 

teachers, families and children 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 83533 

5Logic 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. See 34 CFR 77.1. 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Identify the needs of the intended 

recipients for ongoing coaching and 

supports; 

(ii) Identify potential strategies to 

provide recipients of the in-service 

training with the flexibility to 

personalize their own learning and 

coaching supports; and 

(iii) Ensure that products and 

resources meet the needs of the 

intended recipients of the grant; 

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model 5

or conceptual framework 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 logic model or 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-conceptualframework. 

(4) Be based on current research. To 

meet this requirement, the applicant 

must— 

(i) Describe how the proposed project 

will align to current research, policies, 

and practices related to the benefits, 

services, or opportunities that are 

available using the technology-based 

tool or approach; 

(ii) Describe how the proposed project 

will incorporate current research and 

practices to guide the development and 

delivery of its products and resources, 

including accessibility and usability; 

and 

(iii) Document that the technology 

tool used by the project is fully 

developed, has been tested and shown 

to have promising evidence, and 

addresses, at a minimum, the following 

principles of universal design for 

learning (UDL): 

(A) Multiple means of presentation so 

that information can be delivered in 

more than one way (e.g., specialized 

software and websites, screen readers 

that include features such as text-tospeech, changeable color contrast, 

alterable text size, or selection of 

different reading levels). 

(B) Multiple means of expression that 

allow knowledge to be exhibited 

through options such as writing, online 

concept mapping, or speech-to-text 

programs, where appropriate. 

(C) Multiple means of engagement to 

stimulate interest in and motivation for 

learning (e.g., options among several 

different learning activities or content 

for a particular competency or skill and 

providing opportunities for increased 

collaboration consistent with UDL 

principles). 

(5) Develop new products and 

resources 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— 

(i) Provide a plan for recruiting and 

selecting a wide range of settings where 

children with disabilities are served, 

which must include the following: 

(A) Three development sites. 

Development sites are the sites in which 

iterative development of the products 

and resources intended to support the 

implementation of technology tools will 

occur. The project must start 

implementing the technology tool with 

one development site in year one of the 

project period and two additional 

development sites in year two. 

(B) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites are the 

sites in which try-out, formative 

evaluation, and refinement of the 

products and resources will occur. The 

project must work with the four pilot 

sites during years three and four of the 

project period. 

(C) Ten dissemination sites. 

Dissemination/scale-up sites will be 

selected if the project is extended for a 

fifth year. Dissemination/scale-up sites 

will be used to (1) refine the products 

for use by educators, and (2) evaluate 

the performance of the technology tool. 

Dissemination/scale-up sites will 

receive less technical assistance (TA) 

from the project than development and 

pilot sites. Also, dissemination/scale-up 

sites will extend the benefits of the 

technology tool to additional students. 

To be selected as a dissemination/scaleup site, eligible sites must commit to 

working with the project to implement 

the technology tool. 

(D) A site may not serve in more than 

one category (i.e., development, pilot, 

dissemination/scale-up). 

(E) A minimum of three of the seven 

development and pilot sites must be in 

settings other than traditional public 

elementary and secondary schools and 

include at least one rural site. A 

minimum of four of the 10 

dissemination/scale-up sites must be in 

settings other than traditional public 

elementary and secondary schools and 

include at least one rural site. These 

non-traditional and rural sites must 

otherwise meet the requirements of each 

category listed above. 

(ii) Provide information on the 

development and pilot sites, including 

student demographics and other 

pertinent data (e.g., whether the settings 

are schools identified for 

comprehensive or targeted support and 

improvement in accordance with 

section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or 

(d)(2)(C)–(D) of the ESEA); 

(iii) Provide its plan for 

dissemination, which must address how 

the project will systematically distribute 

information, products, and services to 

varied intended audiences, using a 

variety of dissemination strategies, to 

promote awareness and use of the 

project’s products and resources that 

goes beyond conference presentations 

and research articles; 

(iv) Provide its plan for how the 

project will sustain project activities 

after funding ends; and 

(v) Provide assurances that the final 

products disseminated to help sites 

effectively implement technology tools 

will be both open educational resources 

(OER) and licensed through an open 

access licensing authority. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation,’’ include an 

evaluation plan for the project as 

described in the following paragraphs. 

The evaluation plan must describe 

measures of progress in implementation, 

including the criteria for determining 

the extent to which the project’s 

products and resources have met the 

goals for reaching the project’s target 

population; measures of intended 

outcomes or results of the project’s 

activities in order to evaluate those 

activities; and how well the goals or 

objectives of the proposed project, as 

described in its logic model, have been 

met. The applicant must provide an 

assurance that, in designing the 

evaluation plan, it will— 

(1) Provide a logic model or 

conceptual framework that depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, project 

evaluation, methods, performance 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83534 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 

measures, outputs, and outcomes of the 

proposed project; 

(2) Provide a plan to implement the 

activities described in this priority; 

(3) Provide a plan, linked to the 

proposed project’s logic model or 

conceptual framework, for a formative 

evaluation of the proposed project’s 

activities. The plan must describe how 

the formative evaluation will use clear 

performance objectives to ensure 

continuous improvement in the 

operation of the proposed project, 

including objective measures of progress 

in implementing the project and 

ensuring the quality of products and 

resources; 

(4) Describe a plan or method for 

assessing— 

(i) The development and pilot sites’ 

current teacher in-service training uses 

and needs, any current in-service 

technology investments, and the 

knowledge and availability of dedicated 

on-site in-service training personnel; 

(ii) The readiness of development and 

pilot sites to pilot or try-out the 

technology-based teacher in-service 

training, including at a minimum, their 

current infrastructure, available 

resources, and ability to build capacity; 

(iii) Whether the technology-based 

tool or approach has achieved its 

intended outcomes for teacher inservice trainers and PK–12 teachers; and 

(iv) Ongoing training needs of inservice trainers to implement with 

fidelity; 

(5) Collect formative and summative 

data from the in-service training to 

refine and evaluate the products; 

(6) If the project is extended to a fifth 

year— 

(i) Provide the implementation 

package of products and resources 

developed for the technology-based tool 

or approach to no fewer than 10 

additional school sites, one of which 

must be rural, in year five; and 

(ii) Collect summative data about the 

success of the project’s products and 

resources in supporting implementation 

of the technology-based tool or 

approach in teacher in-service training 

sites; and 

(7) By the end of the project period, 

provide— 

(i) Information on the products and 

resources, as supported by the project 

evaluation, including accessibility 

features, that will enable other sites to 

implement and sustain implementation 

of the technology-based tool or 

approach; 

(ii) Information in the Technology 

Implementation Report, including data 

on how in-service trainers used the 

technology-based tool or approach, and 

how the technology-based tool or 

approach was implemented with 

fidelity; 

(iii) Data on how the technologybased tool or approach changed inservice trainers’ practices; and 

(iv) A plan for disseminating or 

scaling up the technology-based tool or 

approach and accompanying products 

beyond the sites directly involved in the 

project. 

(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 

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 

resources 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, 

researchers, and policy makers, among 

others, in its development and 

operation. 

(f) Address the following application 

requirements. The applicant must 

include— 

(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading 

charts and timelines, as applicable, to 

illustrate the management plan 

described in the narrative; and 

(2) 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 a virtual conference during each 

year of the project period. 

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to 

attend Department briefings, 

Department-sponsored conferences, and 

other meetings, as requested by OSEP. 

(iv) A one-day intensive OSEP review 

meeting during the last half of the 

second year of the project period. 

Cohort Collaboration and Support 

OSEP project officer(s) will provide 

coordination support among the 

projects. Each project funded under this 

priority must— 

(a) Participate in monthly conferencecall discussions to share and collaborate 

on implementation and project issues; 

and 

(b) Provide information annually 

using a template that captures 

descriptive data on project site selection 

and the processes for installation and 

use of the technology-based tool or 

approach (i.e., the implementation 

process). 

Note: The following website provides more 

information about implementation research: 

https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/nationalimplementation-research-network. 

Fifth Year of Project 

The Secretary may extend a project 

one year beyond the initial 48 months 

to work with dissemination/scale-up 

sites if the grantee is achieving the 

intended outcomes of the project (as 

demonstrated by data gathered as part of 

the project evaluation) and making a 

positive contribution to the 

implementation of a technology-based 

tool or approach based on at least 

promising evidence with fidelity in the 

development and pilot sites. Each 

applicant must include in its 

application a plan for the full 60-month 

period. In deciding whether to continue 

funding the project for the fifth year, the 

Secretary will consider the requirements 

of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and will consider— 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 83535 

(a) The recommendation of a review 

team consisting of the OSEP project 

officer and other experts selected by the 

Secretary. This review will be held 

during the last half of the second year 

of the project period; 

(b) The success and timeliness with 

which the requirements of the 

negotiated cooperative agreement have 

been or are being met by the project; and 

(c) The degree to which the project’s 

activities have changed practices and 

improved outcomes for PK–12 children 

with disabilities. 

References 

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & 

Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher 

Professional Development. Learning 

Policy Institute. https://

learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ 

teacher-prof-dev. 

Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, J. M., Clark, J., 

Menasco, J., & Willis, E. M. (2003). 

Technology infused professional 

development: A framework for 

development and analysis. 

Contemporary Issues in Technology and 

Teacher Education, 3(3). https://

citejournal.org/volume-3/issue-3-03/ 

general/technology-infused-professionaldevelopment-a-framework-fordevelopment-and-analysis. 

McAleavy, T., Hall-Chen, A., Horrocks, S., & 

Riggall, A. (2018). Technology-supported 

professional development for teachers: 

Lessons from developing countries. 

Education Development Trust. https://

eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593386. 

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department 

generally offers interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, 

however, makes the public comment 

requirements of the APA inapplicable to 

the priority in this notice. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 

and 1481. 

Note: Projects must be awarded and 

operated in a manner consistent with the 

nondiscrimination requirements contained in 

the U.S. Constitution and the Federal civil 

rights laws. 

Applicable Regulations: (a) The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR 

parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, 

and 99. (b) The Office of Management 

and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on 

Governmentwide Debarment and 

Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR 

part 180, as adopted and amended as 

regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 

part 3485. (c) The Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as 

adopted and amended as regulations of 

the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 

apply to all applicants except federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 

apply to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) only. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

agreements. 

Estimated Available Funds: The 

Administration has requested 

$29,547,000 for the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials for 

Individuals with Disabilities program 

for FY 2021, of which we intend to use 

an estimated $1,500,000 for this 

competition. The actual level of 

funding, if any, depends on final 

congressional action. However, we are 

inviting applications to allow enough 

time to complete the grant process if 

Congress appropriates funds for this 

program. 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of applications, 

we may make additional awards in FY 

2022 from the list of unfunded 

applications from this competition. 

Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 

to $500,000 per year. 

Estimated Average Size of Awards: 

$475,000 per year. 

Maximum Award: We will not make 

an award exceeding $2,500,000 for the 

60-month project period. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 3. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: Up to 60 months. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, 

including public charter schools that 

operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; 

other public agencies; private nonprofit 

organizations; freely associated States 

and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or 

Tribal organizations; and for-profit 

organizations. 

Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, 

under 34 CFR 75.51, you may demonstrate 

your nonprofit status by providing: (1) Proof 

that the Internal Revenue Service currently 

recognizes the applicant as an organization to 

which contributions are tax deductible under 

section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 

Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing 

body or the State attorney general certifying 

that the organization is a nonprofit 

organization operating within the State and 

that no part of its net earnings may lawfully 

benefit any private shareholder or individual; 

(3) a certified copy of the applicant’s 

certificate of incorporation or similar 

document if it clearly establishes the 

nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any 

item described above if that item applies to 

a State or national parent organization, 

together with a statement by the State or 

parent organization that the applicant is a 

local nonprofit affiliate. 

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This 

program does not require cost sharing or 

matching. 

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This 

program uses an unrestricted indirect 

cost rate. For more information 

regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a 

negotiated indirect cost rate, please see 

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/ 

intro.html. 

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: 

This program does not include any 

program-specific limitation on 

administrative expenses. All 

administrative expenses must be 

reasonable and necessary and conform 

to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR 

part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 

Guidance. 

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this 

competition may not award subgrants to 

entities to directly carry out project 

activities described in its application. 

Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may 

contract for supplies, equipment, and 

other services in accordance with 2 CFR 

part 200. 

4. Other General Requirements: (a) 

Recipients of funding under this 

competition must make positive efforts 

to employ and advance in employment 

qualified individuals with disabilities 

(see section 606 of IDEA). 

(b) Each applicant for, and recipient 

of, funding must, with respect to the 

aspects of their proposed project 

relating to the absolute priority, involve 

individuals with disabilities, or parents 

of individuals with disabilities ages 

birth through 26, in planning, 

implementing, and evaluating the 

project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 

IDEA). 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. Application Submission 

Instructions: Applicants are required to 

follow the Common Instructions for 

Applicants to Department of Education 

Discretionary Grant Programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and 

available at www.govinfo.gov/content/ 

pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, 

which contain requirements and 

information on how to submit an 

application. 

2. Intergovernmental Review: This 

competition is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. Information about 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs under Executive Order 12372 

is in the application package for this 

competition. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83536 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

4. Recommended Page Limit: The 

application narrative is where you, the 

applicant, address the selection criteria 

that reviewers use to evaluate your 

application. We recommend that you (1) 

limit the application narrative to no 

more than 50 pages and (2) use the 

following standards: 

• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5′′ x 11′′, on one side 

only, with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, 

and both sides. 

• Double-space (no more than three 

lines per vertical inch) all text in the 

application narrative, including titles, 

headings, footnotes, quotations, 

reference citations, and captions, as well 

as all text in charts, tables, figures, 

graphs, and screen shots. 

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger. 

• Use one of the following fonts: 

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 

New, or Arial. 

The recommended page limit does not 

apply to the cover sheet; the budget 

section, including the narrative budget 

justification; the assurances and 

certifications; or the abstract (follow the 

guidance provided in the application 

package for completing the abstract), the 

table of contents, the list of priority 

requirements, the resumes, the reference 

list, the letters of support, or the 

appendices. However, the 

recommended page limit does apply to 

all of the application narrative, 

including all text in charts, tables, 

figures, graphs, and screen shots. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria: The selection 

criteria for this competition are from 34 

CFR 75.210 and are as follows: 

(a) Significance (15 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

significance of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the significance of 

the proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The significance of the problem or 

issue to be addressed by the proposed 

project; 

(ii) The extent to which specific gaps 

or weaknesses in services, 

infrastructure, or opportunities have 

been identified and will be addressed by 

the proposed project, including the 

nature and magnitude of those gaps or 

weaknesses; 

(iii) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to increased 

knowledge or understanding of 

educational problems, issues, or 

effective strategies; and 

(iv) The potential replicability of the 

proposed project or strategies, 

including, as appropriate, the potential 

for implementation in a variety of 

settings. 

(b) Quality of project services (30 

points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the services to be provided by 

the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

services to be provided by the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

quality and sufficiency of strategies for 

ensuring equal access and treatment for 

eligible project participants who are 

members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. 

(3) In addition, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the services to 

be provided by the proposed project 

reflect up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice; 

(ii) The extent to which the training 

or professional development services to 

be provided by the proposed project are 

of sufficient quality, intensity, and 

duration to lead to improvements in 

practice among the recipients of those 

services; 

(iii) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

involve the collaboration of appropriate 

partners for maximizing the 

effectiveness of project services; 

(iv) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

are appropriate to the needs of the 

intended recipients or beneficiaries of 

those services; and 

(v) The likely impact of the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

on the intended recipients of those 

services. 

(c) Quality of the project evaluation 

(20 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the evaluation to be 

conducted of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project; 

(ii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation include the use of 

objective performance measures that are 

clearly related to the intended outcomes 

of the project and will produce 

quantitative and qualitative data to the 

extent possible; 

(iii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation provide for examining the 

effectiveness of project implementation 

strategies; 

(iv) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes; and 

(v) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan clearly articulates the key project 

components, mediators, and outcomes, 

as well as a measurable threshold for 

acceptable implementation. 

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality 

of project personnel (20 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources for the proposed 

project and the quality of the personnel 

who will carry out the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of 

project personnel, the Secretary 

considers the extent to which the 

applicant encourages 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. 

(3) In addition, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director or principal 

investigator; 

(ii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of key 

project personnel; 

(iii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of 

project consultants or subcontractors; 

(iv) The adequacy of support, 

including facilities, equipment, 

supplies, and other resources, from the 

applicant organization or the lead 

applicant organization; 

(v) The relevance and demonstrated 

commitment of each partner in the 

proposed project to the implementation 

and success of the project; and 

(vi) The extent to which the costs are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and potential significance of the 

proposed project. 

(e) Quality of the management plan 

(15 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the management plan for the 

proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

management plan for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks; 

(ii) The extent to which the time 

commitments of the project director and 

principal investigator and other key 

project personnel are appropriate and 

adequate to meet the objectives of the 

proposed project; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 83537 

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for 

ensuring high-quality products and 

services from the proposed project; 

(iv) How the applicant will ensure 

that a diversity of perspectives are 

brought to bear in the operation of the 

proposed project, including those of 

parents, teachers, the business 

community, a variety of disciplinary 

and professional fields, recipients or 

beneficiaries of services, or others, as 

appropriate; and 

(v) The adequacy of procedures for 

ensuring feedback and continuous 

improvement in the operation of the 

proposed project. 

2. Review and Selection Process: We 

remind potential applicants that in 

reviewing applications in any 

discretionary grant competition, the 

Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 

75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the 

applicant in carrying out a previous 

award, such as the applicant’s use of 

funds, achievement of project 

objectives, and compliance with grant 

conditions. The Secretary may also 

consider whether the applicant failed to 

submit a timely performance report or 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary requires 

various assurances, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

3. Additional Review and Selection 

Process Factors: In the past, the 

Department has had difficulty finding 

peer reviewers for certain competitions 

because so many individuals who are 

eligible to serve as peer reviewers have 

conflicts of interest. The standing panel 

requirements under section 682(b) of 

IDEA also have placed additional 

constraints on the availability of 

reviewers. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that for some 

discretionary grant competitions, 

applications may be separated into two 

or more groups and ranked and selected 

for funding within specific groups. This 

procedure will make it easier for the 

Department to find peer reviewers by 

ensuring that greater numbers of 

individuals who are eligible to serve as 

reviewers for any particular group of 

applicants will not have conflicts of 

interest. It also will increase the quality, 

independence, and fairness of the 

review process, while permitting panel 

members to review applications under 

discretionary grant competitions for 

which they also have submitted 

applications. 

4. Risk Assessment and Specific 

Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 

200.205, before awarding grants under 

this competition, the Department 

conducts a review of the risks posed by 

applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the 

Secretary may impose specific 

conditions and, in appropriate 

circumstances, high-risk conditions on a 

grant if the applicant or grantee is not 

financially stable; has a history of 

unsatisfactory performance; has a 

financial or other management system 

that does not meet the standards in 2 

CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 

fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; 

or is otherwise not responsible. 

5. Integrity and Performance System: 

If you are selected under this 

competition to receive an award that 

over the course of the project period 

may exceed the simplified acquisition 

threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 

CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a 

judgment about your integrity, business 

ethics, and record of performance under 

Federal awards—that is, the risk posed 

by you as an applicant—before we make 

an award. In doing so, we must consider 

any information about you that is in the 

integrity and performance system 

(currently referred to as the Federal 

Awardee Performance and Integrity 

Information System (FAPIIS)), 

accessible through the System for 

Award Management. You may review 

and comment on any information about 

yourself that a Federal agency 

previously entered and that is currently 

in FAPIIS. 

Please note that, if the total value of 

your currently active grants, cooperative 

agreements, and procurement contracts 

from the Federal Government exceeds 

$10,000,000, the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, 

require you to report certain integrity 

information to FAPIIS semiannually. 

Please review the requirements in 2 CFR 

part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant 

plus all the other Federal funds you 

receive exceed $10,000,000. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN); or we may send you an email 

containing a link to access an electronic 

version of your GAN. We may notify 

you informally, also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Open Licensing Requirements: 

Unless an exception applies, if you are 

awarded a grant under this competition, 

you will be required to openly license 

to the public grant deliverables created 

in whole, or in part, with Department 

grant funds. When the deliverable 

consists of modifications to pre-existing 

works, the license extends only to those 

modifications that can be separately 

identified and only to the extent that 

open licensing is permitted under the 

terms of any licenses or other legal 

restrictions on the use of pre-existing 

works. Additionally, a grantee that is 

awarded competitive grant funds must 

have a plan to disseminate these public 

grant deliverables. This dissemination 

plan can be developed and submitted 

after your application has been 

reviewed and selected for funding. For 

additional information on the open 

licensing requirements please refer to 2 

CFR 3474.20. 

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multiyear award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/appforms/ 

appforms.html. 

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the 

Secretary may provide a grantee with 

additional funding for data collection 

analysis and reporting. In this case the 

Secretary establishes a data collection 

period. 

5. Performance Measures: Under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has 

established a set of performance 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83538 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Notices 

measures, including long-term 

measures, that are designed to yield 

information on various aspects such as 

evaluating whether project goals and 

target outcomes are met and quality of 

the Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials (ETechM2) for Individuals 

with Disabilities Program. These 

measures are: 

• Program Performance Measure 1: 

The percentage of ETechM2 Program 

products and services judged to be of 

high quality by an independent review 

panel of experts qualified to review the 

substantial content of the products and 

services. 

• Program Performance Measure 2: 

The percentage of ETechM2 Program 

products and services judged to be of 

high relevance to improving outcomes 

for infants, toddlers, children, and 

youth with disabilities. 

• Program Performance Measure 3: 

The percentage of ETechM2 Program 

products and services judged to be 

useful in improving results for infants, 

toddlers, children, and youth with 

disabilities. 

• Program Performance Measure 4.1: 

The Federal cost per unit of accessible 

educational materials funded by the 

ETechM2 Program. 

• Program Performance Measure 4.2: 

The Federal cost per unit of accessible 

educational materials from the National 

Instructional Materials Accessibility 

Center funded by the ETechM2 

Program. 

• Program Performance Measure 4.3: 

The Federal cost per unit of video 

description funded by the ETechM2 

Program. 

These measures apply to projects 

funded under this competition, and 

grantees are required to submit data on 

these measures as directed by OSEP. 

Grantees will be required to report 

information on their project’s 

performance in annual performance 

reports and additional performance data 

to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 

75.591). 

6. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award under 34 CFR 

75.253, the Secretary considers, among 

other things: Whether a grantee has 

made substantial progress in achieving 

the goals and objectives of the project; 

whether the grantee has expended funds 

in a manner that is consistent with its 

approved application and budget; and, 

if the Secretary has established 

performance measurement 

requirements, the performance targets in 

the grantee’s approved application. 

In making a continuation award, the 

Secretary also considers whether the 

grantee is operating in compliance with 

the assurances in its approved 

application, including those applicable 

to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit 

discrimination in programs or activities 

receiving Federal financial assistance 

from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 

104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Other Information 

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 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. 

Mark Schultz, 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services 

Administration. Delegated the authority to 

perform the functions and duties of the 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28345 Filed 12–18–20; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket No. ED–2020–SCC–0196] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget for Review 

and Approval; Comment Request; 

National Public Education Financial 

Survey (NPEFS) 2019–2021: Common 

Core of Data (CCD) 

AGENCY: National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES), Department of Education 

(ED). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is 

seeking public comment on proposed 

changes to a currently existing 

information collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before January 

21, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for proposed 

information collection requests should 

be sent within 30 days of publication of 

this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Find this particular 

information request by selecting 

‘‘Department of Education’’ under 

‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ then check 

‘‘Only Show ICR for Public Comment’’ 

checkbox. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

specific questions related to collection 

activities, please contact Carrie Clarady, 

202–245–6347. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Education (ED), in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general 

public and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed, 

revised, and continuing collections of 

information. This helps the Department 

assess the impact of its information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. It also 

helps the public understand the 

Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. ED is 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) 

changes that are described below. The 

Department of Education is especially 

interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Department; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Department enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (5) how might the 

Department minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. Please note that written 

comments received in response to this 

notice will be considered public 

records. 

Title of Collection: National Public 

Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) 

2019–2021: Common Core of Data 

(CCD). 

OMB Control Number: 1850–0067. 

Type of Review: A change to a 

currently existing information 

collection. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES