Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29239 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (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 final 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 final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with 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. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

final priority have been completed 

successfully. The new RRTC will 

generate, and promote the use of, new 

knowledge that will improve the 

options for individuals with disabilities 

to perform regular activities of their 

choice in the community. 

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 program 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: May 15, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and the duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11978 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.373Y] 

Final Priority; Technical Assistance To 

Improve State Data Capacity—National 

Technical Assistance Center To 

Improve State Capacity To Accurately 

Collect and Report IDEA Data 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
29240 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority under the 

Technical Assistance to Improve State 

Data Capacity program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus attention on an identified national 

need to provide technical assistance 

(TA) to States to improve their capacity 

to meet the data collection and reporting 

requirements of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We 

intend this priority to establish a TA 

center to improve State capacity to 

accurately collect and report IDEA data 

(Data Center). 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective June 19, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4052, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2600. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7401 or by email: 

richelle.davis@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: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program is to improve the 

capacity of States to meet their IDEA 

data collection and reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of the IDEA. Funding for the 

program is authorized under section 

611(c)(1) of the IDEA, which gives the 

Secretary the authority to reserve funds 

appropriated under section 611 of the 

IDEA to provide TA authorized under 

section 616(i) of the IDEA. Section 

616(i) requires the Secretary to review 

the data collection and analysis capacity 

of States to ensure that data and 

information determined necessary for 

implementation of sections 616 and 618 

of the IDEA are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported. It also requires the 

Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 

to improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements under 

the IDEA. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 

1416(i), and 1418(c). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this competition in the 

Federal Register on August 6, 2012 (77 

FR 46658). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing this particular priority. 

Except for minor editorial and technical 

revisions (noted below), there are no 

differences between the proposed 

priority and this final priority. We made 

these minor technical revisions: 

(a) Clarified information in 

requirement (e)(3) about attendance at 

Department sponsored data conferences; 

(b) Deleted the TA and dissemination 

activities (c), (j), and part of (m)(2) that 

were included in the proposed priority 

as these are Department data review 

responsibilities (see section 616(i)(1) of 

the IDEA); 

(c) Clarified the required Data Center 

Web site content and distinguished it 

from Department data postings in 

current TA and dissemination activity 

(f); 

(d) Clarified that records of TA 

activities conducted by the Data Center 

must be available to the project officer 

in current TA and dissemination 

activity (c); 

(e) Clarified that the purpose of 

leadership and coordination activity (a) 

is to consult with TA recipients and 

other stakeholders about their TA needs 

as they relate to the outcomes and 

activities of the Data Center; and 

(f) Added more examples of allowable 

TA activities, including training for new 

State IDEA Data Managers, developing 

white papers and technical briefs, and 

consulting with IDEA Data Managers 

and others to identify ways to enhance 

State data system usability. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, eight parties submitted 

comments on the proposed priority. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address comments 

that raised concerns not directly related 

to the proposed priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

General Comments 

Comment: Two commenters agreed 

that TA is needed to improve State data 

reporting capacity, and one commenter 

supported providing TA focused on the 

use of built-in EDFacts data validation 

tools to support data quality. One 

commenter agreed that TA about data 

management issues relating to 

protecting privacy, confidentiality, and 

security of data would be beneficial. 

None of these comments requested 

changes. 

Discussion: The Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) appreciates 

the feedback received from commenters 

about the need for the Data Center to 

provide TA to improve the capacity of 

States to meet the IDEA data reporting 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Focus TA on Assessment and Discipline 

Data 

Comment: Three commenters agreed 

with the importance of focusing on 

assessment and discipline data, and two 

commenters agreed with the need for 

TA for addressing issues of data 

governance and coordination across 

offices about decisions and actions 

associated with data collection and 

reporting. One commenter stated that 

assessment and discipline data are not 

problematic in all States and that data 

errors are a result of the complexity of 

the Department’s data collection and 

reporting requirements. The 

commenters did not request changes to 

the priority. 

Discussion: OSEP appreciates the 

comments affirming that the Data 

Center’s scope of work will address 

areas in which States have the greatest 

need for TA. OSEP agrees that 

assessment and discipline data are not 

problematic in all States and that it is 

possible that some of the evident errors 

in State data arise in the course of 

complying with IDEA reporting 

requirements. However, it is the 

responsibility of each State to submit 

valid and reliable data to meet IDEA 

reporting requirements. Changing 

reporting requirements would require a 

separate public rulemaking process. 

Changes: None. 

TA Products and Services To Build 

Staff Capacity 

Comment: Six commenters agreed 

with the need for TA to build staff 

capacity to collect, report, and analyze 

IDEA data. Two commenters 

specifically requested that new IDEA 

Data Manager training be included in 

the priority. One commenter requested 

that white papers or technical briefs 

about proposed or current IDEA data 

collections be included in the priority. 

Another commenter suggested placing 

more emphasis on the provision of TA 

to build local staff capacity, one 

commenter suggested placing less 

emphasis on building local staff 

capacity, and one commenter raised 

concerns about placing any emphasis on 

building local staff capacity due to the 

wide variations in State systems and 

inherent difficulties in tailoring TA to 

account for these variations. One 

commenter suggested that the Data 

Center assist the Department in 

changing the data collections rather 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29241 

than provide TA that builds local staff 

capacity. 

Discussion: OSEP agrees that there is 

a need to build staff capacity to collect, 

report, and analyze IDEA data. We 

believe this can be accomplished using 

a wide range of products (e.g., white 

papers, technical briefs) and services 

(e.g., training new State IDEA Data 

Managers) and by providing TA to staff 

at all levels of the data collection and 

reporting system, including local 

program staff. We believe that providing 

TA to local staff will improve the 

quality of State IDEA data, as the 

majority of data reported under sections 

616 and 618 of the IDEA are collected 

by local programs, local educational 

agencies (LEAs), and early intervention 

service (EIS) providers). Because of 

variations in State data systems, 

however, we agree that TA provided to 

local program staff should also include 

State staff and be tailored to the State 

context. In addition, under section 616 

of the IDEA, States must report to the 

public on the performance of local 

programs by posting on the State 

agency’s Web site the performance of 

each local program as measured against 

the State’s targets for each indicator in 

the State Performance Plan (SPP) and 

Annual Performance Report (APR) 

under section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the 

IDEA, furthering the need for highquality local data. 

OSEP also understands the desire to 

change data collection requirements to 

reduce reporting burden, but the 

purpose of the Data Center is to provide 

TA to States to meet IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements. 

The data requirements promote 

accountability and provide transparency 

to the public about the use of IDEA 

funds. Further, changing data 

requirements would require a separate 

public rulemaking process, and it is 

beyond the Data Center’s scope of work 

to provide TA to the Department. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to clarify that: training for new State 

IDEA Data Managers, and development 

of white papers and technical briefs, 

would be appropriate TA activities for 

the Data Center; the scope of work for 

the Data Center includes support to 

States to build capacity to collect, 

report, and analyze IDEA data and does 

not include support to the Department 

(which is evident through the deletion 

of TA and dissemination activities (c), 

(j), and part of (m)(2) from the proposed 

priority); and TA provided under the 

current TA and dissemination activity 

(c) to local program representatives 

must also include State staff and be 

tailored to the State context. 

TA as Consultation About Data Systems 

Comment: One commenter noted 

challenges to using the State data 

system to run data queries but did not 

recommend any changes to the priority. 

Discussion: Data queries are the 

methods, or codes, to retrieve data from 

a database. OSEP agrees with the 

commenter that if it is difficult for State 

staff to retrieve data from a system, they 

are less likely to use the data. OSEP 

believes that it is important to 

encourage use of data by State staff, 

because State staff who are using data 

are more likely to identify and correct 

errors, thereby improving the quality of 

the data. The purpose of this priority is 

to improve State capacity to meet IDEA 

data collection requirements, including 

requirements as to quality, validity, and 

completeness, and, therefore, TA to 

improve data system usability fits 

within the priority. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to clarify that the Data Center may 

provide TA to States to identify system 

usability improvements that increase 

data use and data quality, provided that 

such TA activities are linked to 

improving State capacity to meet IDEA 

data collection requirements. 

TA Through Conference Attendance 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the Data Center provide funding for 

State IDEA Data Managers to attend 

national meetings. 

Discussion: The purpose of the Data 

Center is to provide TA to improve the 

capacity of States to meet the IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements. It 

is beyond the scope of the priority to 

provide travel support for State IDEA 

Data Managers to attend conferences. 

Changes: None. 

Data About Students in One Disability 

Category 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the reliability and 

validity of data collected on children 

with visual impairments and the effect 

that inaccurate data may have on 

providing these students with a free 

appropriate public education. No 

changes to the priority were proposed. 

Discussion: We understand the 

importance of reporting accurate data 

for all students with disabilities, 

including students with visual 

impairments. The purpose of the Data 

Center is to provide TA to build State 

capacity to meet IDEA data collection 

and reporting requirements, which 

includes ensuring the accuracy of data 

reported about children and students 

with disabilities in all age ranges and all 

disability groups. 

Changes: None. 

Automated Data Validation 

Comment: One commenter discussed 

the need for automated data validation 

checks in the Department’s data 

collection system (EDFacts). 

Discussion: OSEP agrees that 

automated data validation tools improve 

the quality of IDEA data. The proposed 

priority therefore included a 

requirement for the Data Center to 

collect recommendations for validation 

checks that could be added to EDFacts. 

Changes: None. 

Needs Assessments 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Data Center 

survey States to determine the need for 

new TA tools. The commenter 

recommended that States be involved in 

developing the TA tools. 

Discussion: OSEP agrees with the 

commenter. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to require the Data Center to consult 

with TA recipients or other informed 

stakeholders to identify TA needs, 

including TA products and services. 

Data Reporting Requirements, Review, 

and Posting 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested ways the Data Center could 

improve the review and follow-up 

procedures associated with Statereported IDEA data, including: develop 

new IDEA data reporting guidance, 

publish IDEA data on the Data Center’s 

Web site, assist the Department in 

aligning data reporting requirements 

across various programs that collect data 

about students with disabilities, review 

State-reported IDEA data, and maintain 

ongoing communication with States on 

behalf of the Department as follow-up in 

the data review process. 

Discussion: The purpose of the 

priority is to provide TA to States to 

improve their capacity to meet IDEA 

data collection and reporting 

requirements and not to improve the 

Department’s functions. The 

recommendations are not within the 

scope of the priority. 

Changes: We have, however, revised 

the priority to clarify that the scope of 

work of the new Data Center is to 

provide TA to States to build their 

capacity to collect, analyze, and report 

IDEA data and does not include 

assisting the Department in reviewing 

State-reported data, communicating 

with States on behalf of the Department, 

or publishing IDEA data on behalf of the 

Department. As noted above, the 

changes are evident in the deletion of 

TA and dissemination activities (c), (j), 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
29242 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and part of (m)(2) that were in the 

proposed priority. 

Data Analyses 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Data Center be required to 

collaborate with EDFacts Partner 

Support Center to provide feedback to 

the States about errors or anomalies 

identified in their IDEA section 618 

data. 

Discussion: OSEP agrees with the 

commenter that feedback to States about 

errors or anomalies in their IDEA 

section 618 data should be efficient and 

coordinated. OSEP is working with the 

EDFacts office to ensure State EDFacts 

Coordinators and State IDEA Data 

Managers receive joint communication 

from the Department, as appropriate. 

The Data Center will not review IDEA 

section 618 or APR data on behalf of the 

Department or provide feedback to the 

States about the quality of the data on 

behalf of the Department. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

by deleting TA and dissemination 

activity (j) from the proposed priority 

(which would have established a tollfree number and means of electronic 

communication between the Data Center 

and States about IDEA data submissions 

and IDEA data errors or anomalies). 

Final Priority 

National Technical Assistance Center 

To Improve State Capacity To 

Accurately Collect and Report IDEA 

Data 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

a cooperative agreement to support the 

establishment and operation of a 

National Technical Assistance Center 

To Improve State Capacity To 

Accurately Collect and Report IDEA 

Data (Data Center). The Data Center will 

provide TA to improve the capacity of 

States to meet IDEA data collection and 

reporting requirements by: 

(a) Improving data infrastructure by 

coordinating and promoting 

communication and effective data 

governance strategies among relevant 

State offices including State educational 

agencies (SEAs) and State lead agencies, 

local educational agencies (LEAs), 

schools, early intervention service (EIS) 

providers, and TA providers to improve 

the quality of the IDEA data; 

(b) Using results from the 

Department’s auto-generated error 

reports to communicate with State IDEA 

Data Managers and other relevant 

stakeholders in the State (e.g., EDFacts 

Coordinator) about data that appear to 

be inaccurate and provide support to the 

State (as needed) to enhance current 

State validation procedures to prevent 

future errors in State-reported IDEA 

data; 

(c) Using the results of the 

Department’s review of State-reported 

data to help States ensure that data are 

collected and reported from all 

programs providing special education 

and related services within the State; 

(d) Addressing personnel training 

needs by developing effective 

informational tools (e.g., training 

modules) and resources (e.g., cross-walk 

documents about IDEA and non-IDEA 

data elements) about data collection and 

reporting requirements that States can 

use to train personnel in schools, 

programs, agencies, and districts; 

(e) Supporting States in submitting 

data into EDFacts by coordinating with 

EDFacts TA providers (i.e., Partner 

Support Center; see www2.ed.gov/ 

about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html) 

about IDEA-specific data reporting 

requirements and providing EDFacts 

reports and TA to States to help them 

improve the accuracy of their IDEA data 

submissions; 

(f) Improving IDEA data validation by 

using results from data reviews 

conducted by the Department to work 

with States to generate tools (e.g., 

templates of data dashboards) that can 

be used by States to accurately 

communicate data to local dataconsumer groups (e.g., school boards, 

the general public) and lead to 

improvements in the validity and 

reliability of data required by IDEA; and 

(g) Using results from the 

Department’s review of State-reported 

APR data to provide intensive and 

individualized TA to improve the 

accuracy of qualitative information 

provided in the APR about the State’s 

efforts to improve its implementation of 

the requirements and purposes of IDEA, 

and to more accurately target its future 

improvement activities. 

The TA provided by the Data Center 

must be directed at all relevant parties 

within a State that can affect the quality 

of IDEA data and must not be limited to 

State special education or early 

intervention offices. The Data Center’s 

TA must primarily target data issues 

identified through the Department’s 

review of IDEA data. TA needs can also 

be identified by a State’s review of IDEA 

data or other relevant means, but TA 

must be based on an identified need 

related to improving IDEA data accuracy 

or timeliness. Effectiveness of the Data 

Center’s TA will be demonstrated 

through changes in a State’s capacity to 

collect and report valid and reliable 

IDEA data and resolve identified data 

issues. 

Funding for the Data Center is 

authorized under section 611(c)(1) of 

the IDEA, which gives the Secretary the 

authority to reserve funds appropriated 

under section 611 of the IDEA to 

provide TA authorized under section 

616(i) of the IDEA. Section 616(i) 

requires the Secretary to review the data 

collection and analysis capacity of 

States to ensure that data and 

information determined necessary for 

implementation of sections 616 and 618 

of the IDEA are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported. It also requires the 

Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 

to improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements under 

the IDEA. 

To be considered for funding under 

this absolute priority, applicants must 

meet the application requirements 

contained in this priority. Any project 

funded under this priority also must 

meet the programmatic and 

administrative requirements specified in 

the priority. 

Application Requirements. An 

applicant must include in its 

application— 

(a) A logic model that depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, 

and outcomes of the project. A logic 

model communicates how a project will 

achieve its outcomes and provides a 

framework for both the formative and 

summative evaluations of the project; 

Note: The following Web site provides 

more information on logic models and lists 

multiple online resources: www.cdc.gov/ 

eval/resources/index.htm; 

(b) A plan to implement the activities 

described in the Project Activities 

section of this priority; 

(c) A plan, linked to the project’s logic 

model, for a formative evaluation of the 

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 project, including 

objective measures of progress in 

implementing the project and ensuring 

the quality of products and services; 

(d) A budget for a summative 

evaluation to be conducted by an 

independent third party; 

(e) A budget for attendance at the 

following: 

(1) A one and one-half day kick-off 

meeting to be held in Washington, DC, 

after receipt of the award, and an annual 

planning meeting held 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; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29243 

1For information about universal/general, 

targeted/specialized, and intensive/sustained TA, 

see https://tacc-epic.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/

site/162/ConceptFrmwrkLModel%2BDefsAug

2012.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIMS3GHWZED

KKDRDQ&Expires=1367515628&Signature=

80%2FKA2BtZN3JjV1KS2ZIj1xUHhA%3D. 

(2) A three-day project directors’ 

conference in Washington, DC, during 

each year of the project period; 

(3) A three-day data conference up to 

twice each year in Washington, DC, and 

planned by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) for data 

professionals from all levels of 

government to discuss technical and 

policy issues related to the collection, 

maintenance, and use of education data, 

new evidence-based practices related to 

data, and Department initiatives about 

data collection and reporting, during 

each year of the project period; 

(4) A one-day intensive review 

meeting that will be held in 

Washington, DC, during the last half of 

the second year of the project period; 

and 

(5) Up to 36 days per year on-site at 

the Department to participate in 

meetings about IDEA data; meet with 

EDFacts staff, as appropriate; conduct 

conference sessions with program staff 

from States, LEAs, schools, EIS 

providers, and other local programs that 

contribute to the State data system to 

meet IDEA data collection requirements 

(e.g., NCES conferences); coordinate TA 

activities with other Department TA 

initiatives including, but not limited to, 

the Privacy TA Center (see 

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/

index.html), Statewide Longitudinal 

Database Systems TA (see http:// 

nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/), 

Implementation and Support Unit TA 

(see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/

implementation-support-unit/

index.html), and EDFacts Partner 

Support Center (see www2.ed.gov/

about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html); 

and attend other meetings as requested 

by OSEP; and 

(f) A line item in the budget for an 

annual set-aside of four percent of the 

grant amount to support emerging needs 

that are consistent with the project’s 

activities, as those needs are identified 

in consultation with OSEP. 

Note: With approval from the OSEP project 

officer, the Data Center must reallocate any 

remaining funds from this annual set-aside 

no later than the end of the third quarter of 

each budget period. 

Project Activities. To meet the 

requirements of this priority, the Data 

Center, at a minimum, must conduct the 

following activities: 

Technology and Tools 

(a) Assist relevant parties in the State 

in the development of data validation 

procedures and tools; and 

(b) Assist States in creating or 

enhancing TA tools that build local staff 

capacity to accurately collect and report 

data under IDEA Parts B and C that is 

required to be reported to the 

Department and the public under 

sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA (e.g., 

reviewing current State training efforts 

and consulting with the SEA or State 

lead agency about materials and 

methods to improve efficiency or 

effectiveness of State training strategies); 

tools must be designed to improve the 

capacity of States to meet IDEA data 

requirements. 

TA and Dissemination Activities 

(a) Provide TA to State data 

submitters and local data collectors on 

various data quality issues; topics must 

include summaries of data quality 

issues evident from data reviews that 

will be primarily conducted by the 

Department; as appropriate, technology 

should be used to convey information 

efficiently and effectively (e.g., 

webinars); 

(b) Develop an agenda for information 

sessions, which can be conducted at 

conferences or through webinars, 

specific to required IDEA data and 

submit the agenda for approval by 

OSEP. The purpose of the sessions is to 

ensure that State IDEA Data Managers 

have current knowledge and tools to 

collect, analyze, and accurately report 

IDEA data to the Department and gain 

new knowledge and tools that can be 

used to build data capacity at the local 

level; 

(c) Provide a range of general and 

targeted TA products and services 1 on 

evidence-based practices that result in 

valid and reliable data and build the 

capacity of data collectors to collect 

valid and reliable data (e.g., State IDEA 

Data Manager training webinars for 

newly hired staff, white papers, 

technical briefs, review of data systems 

for usability improvements); all TA 

must improve the capacity of States to 

meet IDEA data requirements; all TA 

inquiries and responses must be 

recorded and be accessible to the OSEP 

project officer; 

(d) Conduct approximately eight 

intensive on-site TA visits each year 

focused on improving the capacity of 

States to meet IDEA data requirements. 

Visits should be distributed among Part 

C and Part B programs based on need 

and consultation with OSEP. On-site TA 

visits should be coordinated with other 

Department on-site visits (e.g., EDFacts, 

OSEP monitoring), to the extent that 

coordination will lead to improvements 

in the collection, analysis, and accurate 

reporting of IDEA Part B data at the 

school, LEA, and State levels and of 

IDEA Part C data by EIS providers and 

at the EIS program and State levels. All 

intensive TA visits should include State 

IDEA Data Managers, EDFacts 

Coordinators (as appropriate), and other 

relevant State parties. TA activities 

should emphasize building staff or data 

system capacity at State and local levels. 

Intensive TA may include a broad range 

of activities to meet the needs of each 

State. For example, an intensive TA 

activity may include the review of the 

data systems used by the State to 

identify system usability improvements 

to increase data use and data quality. 

The TA visits may include local data 

collectors or reporters, such as 

representatives from local EIS providers, 

and must focus on: (1) Resolving an 

identified data validity issue or system 

capacity issue; (2) achieving measurable 

outcomes; and (3) ‘‘mapping’’ the 

relationship of the data validity issue or 

system capacity issue with other IDEA 

data elements that are likely to be 

affected by the data validity issue or 

system capacity issue; 

(e) Plan and conduct data analytic 

workshops for local data collectors and 

reporters, which can be conducted at 

conferences or through webinars, to 

improve the capacity of States to meet 

IDEA data collection requirements. The 

workshops must target interdisciplinary 

teams of professionals from a small 

group of LEAs or EIS providers from 

each participating State to analyze the 

validity of data about a targeted issue 

relevant to infants, toddlers, children, or 

students with disabilities (e.g., ensuring 

consistency in data reporting on 

outcomes in all local programs in the 

State) and lead to plans that can be used 

by the EIS providers or LEAs to improve 

their IDEA data collection and 

reporting, as well as inform State-level 

data quality initiatives; 

(f) Maintain a Web site that meets 

government or industry-recognized 

standards for accessibility and is 

targeted to local and State data 

collectors. TA material developed by the 

Data Center, including the results of 

analyses conducted to improve State 

capacity to collect and report IDEA data, 

may be posted on the Data Center site. 

Note that the Department will post IDEA 

section 618 data collection instructions 

(e.g., EDFacts file specifications) on 

www.ed.gov/edfacts and will publish 

IDEA section 618 data on a *.gov Web 

site (e.g., www.data.gov/education); 

(g) Support States in verifying the 

accuracy and completeness of IDEA data 

prior to submission to the Department 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
29244 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

through activities such as data analyses, 

including ensuring that data are 

consistent with data about students with 

disabilities reported in other data 

collections (e.g., ensure that counts of 

students with disabilities reported to 

meet IDEA reporting requirements align 

appropriately with counts reported for 

other Federal programs); analytic 

activities must be linked to improving 

State capacity to meet the IDEA data 

collection requirements; 

(h) Solicit and compile State 

recommendations for automated data 

validation procedures that can be built 

into EDFacts to support States in 

submitting accurate data. Examples 

include business rules that would 

prevent States from submitting invalid 

data (e.g., greater than 100 percent of 

assessment participants scoring 

proficient) and alerts that would ask the 

States to verify the accuracy of 

improbable data prior to completion of 

the submission (e.g., no data where nonzero counts are expected); 

(i) Prepare and disseminate topical 

reports, documents, and other materials 

that support States in meeting IDEA 

data collection and reporting 

requirements; 

(j) Develop guidance documents and 

tools for States to use to communicate 

with local data collectors and reporters 

about new or changing data 

requirements; the Data Center should 

communicate with States using current 

technology; and 

(k) Support States in meeting APR 

submission requirements, including 

by— 

(1) As needed, evaluating sampling 

plans developed by States to report APR 

data based on a sample of districts, 

schools, or EIS providers; 

(2) Evaluating the quality, accuracy, 

and validity of SPP and APR 

quantitative data; and 

(3) Using results from the 

Department’s review of APR data to 

support States in their analyses of 

available data so that States can provide 

accurate qualitative information to the 

Department about their efforts to meet 

the requirements and purposes of the 

IDEA, and to more accurately target 

future improvement activities in their 

SPPs and APRs. 

Leadership and Coordination Activities 

(a) Consult with representatives from 

State and local educational agencies and 

State Part C lead agencies and EIS 

providers; school or district 

administrators; IDEA data collectors; 

data system staff responsible for IDEA 

data quality; data system management 

or data governance staff; and other 

consumers of State-reported IDEA data 

and informed stakeholders, as 

appropriate, on TA needs of 

stakeholders as they relate to the 

activities and outcomes of the Data 

Center, and provide a list of these 

representatives to OSEP within eight 

weeks of receiving its grant award 

notice. For this purpose, the Data Center 

may convene meetings, whether in 

person, by phone, or other means, or 

may consult with people individually 

about the activities and outcomes of the 

Data Center; 

(b) Communicate and coordinate, on 

an ongoing basis, with other 

Department-funded projects to: (1) 

Develop products to improve data 

collection capacity (e.g., What Works 

Clearinghouse); (2) support State 

monitoring of IDEA implementation 

through data use; and (3) develop and 

disseminate resources about data 

privacy issues (e.g., Privacy TA Center; 

see www.ed.gov/ptac); and 

(c) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the OSEP project officer. 

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project 

In deciding whether to continue 

funding the project for the fourth and 

fifth years, the Secretary will consider 

the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), 

and in addition— 

(a) The recommendation of a review 

team consisting of experts selected by 

the Secretary. This review will be 

conducted during a one-day intensive 

meeting in Washington, DC, that will be 

held during the last half of the second 

year of the project period; 

(b) The timeliness and effectiveness 

with which all requirements of the 

negotiated cooperative agreement have 

been or are being met by the project; and 

(c) The quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the project’s activities and 

products and the degree to which the 

project’s activities and products have 

contributed to changed practice and 

improved State capacity to collect and 

report high-quality data required under 

sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. OSEP is 

under no obligation to make an award 

for this priority. The decision to make 

an award will be based on the quality 

of applications received and available 

funding. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (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 

set forth in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29245 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with 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. A Data Center 

funded under the priority established by 

this regulatory action will assist States 

in complying with Federal laws and 

regulations. Without this regulatory 

action, the burden of improving State 

capacity to collect, report, and analyze 

IDEA data would fall solely on the 

responsible State and local entities. 

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) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

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: May 15, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11971 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 105–53, 105–55, 105–56, 

105–57, and 105–60 

[GSPMR Case 2012–105–1; Docket 2012– 

0010; Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ28 

U.S. General Services Administration 

Federal Property Management 

Regulations; Administrative Wage 

Garnishment 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer, U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: GSA is amending the U.S. 

General Services Administration 

Property Management Regulation 

(GSPMR) to remove information 

concerning the General Services Board 

of Contract Appeals (GSBCA), which no 

longer exists, and to provide 

information concerning its successor, 

the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 

(CBCA). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. Erik 

Dorman, Financial Policy and Analysis 

Division, at 202–501–4568 or via email 

at erik.dorman@gsa.gov. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. 

Please cite GSPMR Case 2012–105–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This final rule is to update the 

references to the U.S. General Services 

Administration Board of Contract 

Appeals, which no longer exists, and to 

also provide information concerning its 

successor, the Civilian Board of Contract 

Appeals, to include its creation, 

authority, functions, location, mailing 

address, and telephone number. The 

Administrative Wage Garnishment Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 

affected are as follows: 

• 41 CFR part 105–53 provides a 

general description of GSA and of its 

components and their functions. 

• 41 CFR part 105–55 provides 

standards and procedures for the 

administrative collection, offset, 

compromise, and the suspension or 

termination of collection activity for 

civil claims for money, funds, or 

property, as defined by 31 U.S.C. 

3701(b). 

• 41 CFR part 105–56 provides 

standards and procedures for the 

collection under 5 U.S.C. 5514 of certain 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES