46658 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

relevance or necessity of each piece of 

information in the early stages of an 

investigation. In some cases, it is only 

after the information is evaluated in 

light of other evidence that its relevance 

and necessity will be clear. 

(iv) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and 

(H), as this system of records is 

compiled for law enforcement purposes 

and is exempt from the access 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) and (f). 

(v) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I), as to 

the extent that this provision is 

construed to require more detailed 

disclosure than the broad, generic 

information currently published in the 

system notice, an exemption from this 

provision is necessary to protect the 

confidentiality of sources of information 

and to protect privacy and physical 

safety of witnesses and informants. 

DLA, nevertheless, will continue to 

publish such a notice in broad generic 

terms as is its current practice. 

(i) System Identifier: S510.30 

(Specific/General Exemption). 

(1) System name: Freedom of 

Information Act/Privacy Act Requests 

and Administrative Appeal Records. 

(2) Exemption: During the processing 

of a Freedom of Information Act/Privacy 

Act request (which may include access 

requests, amendment requests, and 

requests for review for initial denials of 

such requests), exempt materials from 

other systems of records may, in turn, 

become part of the case record in this 

system. To the extent that copies of 

exempt records from those ‘‘other’’ 

systems of records are entered into this 

system, the Defense Logistics Agency 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records from those ‘‘other’’ systems that 

are entered into this system, as claimed 

for the original primary system of which 

they are a part. 

(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 

(k)(1) through (7). 

(4) Reasons: Records are only exempt 

from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a to the extent such provisions have 

been identified and an exemption 

claimed for the original record and the 

purposes underlying the exemption for 

the original record still pertain to the 

record which is now contained in this 

system of records. In general, the 

exemptions were claimed in order to 

protect properly classified information 

relating to national defense and foreign 

policy; to avoid interference during the 

conduct of criminal, civil, or 

administrative actions or investigations; 

to ensure protective services provided 

the President and others are not 

compromised; to protect the identity of 

confidential sources incident to Federal 

employment, military service, contract, 

and security clearance determinations; 

to preserve the confidentiality and 

integrity of Federal testing materials; 

and to safeguard evaluation materials 

used for military promotions when 

furnished by a confidential source. The 

exemption rule for the original records 

will identify the specific reasons why 

the records are exempt from specific 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

Dated: July 9, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18123 Filed 8–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.373Y.] 

Proposed 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: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a funding priority 

under the Technical Assistance (TA) on 

State Data Capacity program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this 

proposed priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We 

take this action to focus attention on an 

identified national need to provide TA 

to improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before October 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Kelly Worthington, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 4072, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2600. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

Kelly.Worthington@ed.gov. You must 

include the term ‘‘State Data Capacity 

Priority’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Worthington. Telephone: (202) 

245–7581. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priority in this notice. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priority, we urge you to 

clearly identify the specific topic that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in Room 4072, 550 

12th Street SW., Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, Monday through Friday of each 

week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request, we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program is to improve the 

capacity of States to meet IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements. 

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 section 

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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46659 

1The following Web links provide more 

information on IDEA 618 data elements: 

www.ideadata.org/PartCForms.asp and 

www.ideadata.org/PartBForms.asp. 

2The following Web sites provide more 

information on the 616 SPP/APR Indicators: 

www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/ 

index.html and www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/ 

idea/bapr/index.html. 

Proposed Priority 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. The priority is: 

National Technical Assistance Center 

To Improve State Capacity To 

Accurately Collect and Report IDEA 

Data 

Background 

Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA 

require States to collect data and report 

that data to the U.S. Department of 

Education (Department) and to the 

public (generally, ‘‘IDEA data 

requirements’’). These data 

requirements apply to State agencies 

that administer the IDEA Part B 

program, under which the State must 

make a free appropriate public 

education available to children with 

disabilities ages 3 through 21, and the 

IDEA Part C program, under which the 

State must make early intervention 

services available to infants and 

toddlers with disabilities (birth to age 3) 

and their families. 

Under section 618 of the IDEA, States 

are required to collect and report 

annually to the Secretary and the public 

primarily quantitative data on infants, 

toddlers, children, and students with 

disabilities. States must report a number 

of data elements, including the number 

of children served, the service settings 

or educational environments in which 

children with disabilities are served, the 

use of dispute resolution processes, 

assessment participation and 

performance for children with 

disabilities, reasons for children with 

disabilities exiting special education 

programs, disciplinary incidences and 

counts for children with and without 

disabilities (section 618(a) of the 

IDEA).1 Data provided to the public 

must be reported in a manner that does 

not result in the disclosure of data 

identifiable to individual children 

(section 618(b) of the IDEA). 

Under section 616 of the IDEA, each 

State must submit a State Performance 

Plan (SPP) and an Annual Performance 

Report (APR) to the Department for Part 

B and for Part C. In its APR, a State must 

report to the Secretary and the public on 

its progress in meeting the measurable 

and rigorous targets for each of the 

indicators established by the Secretary, 

currently 14 IDEA Part C indicators and 

20 IDEA Part B indicators (section 

616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the IDEA).2 In 

addition, each State must report on its 

efforts to improve implementation of the 

requirements and purposes of the IDEA 

and describe how they will improve that 

implementation (section 616(b)(1)(A) of 

the IDEA). Each State’s SPPs and APRs 

must include both quantitative 

information (e.g., under Part B’s 

Indicator 1, the percent of youth with 

individualized education programs 

(IEPs) graduating with a regular high 

school diploma) and qualitative 

information about the State’s efforts to 

improve the State’s performance 

regarding each of the State’s targets in 

its SPP (e.g., based on an analysis of the 

data available to the State, the State’s 

explanation of, and plans to address, 

any progress or slippage in meeting 

graduation targets). Finally, each State 

must report to the public on 

implementation of the requirements and 

purposes of the IDEA at the local level 

by posting on the State agency’s Web 

site the performance of each local 

educational agency (LEA) in meeting the 

State’s targets for the Part B indicators 

and of each early intervention service 

(EIS) program in meeting the State’s 

targets for the Part C indicators (section 

616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the IDEA). 

The Secretary is required 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 and accurately 

reported by States to the Department, 

and to provide TA, where needed, to 

improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements 

(section 616(i) of the IDEA). See also 

section 618(c) of the IDEA regarding the 

Secretary’s authority to provide TA to 

States to ensure compliance with the 

data collection and reporting 

requirements of the IDEA. 

The Department has reviewed the 

data collection and analysis capacity of 

States to ensure that IDEA data are being 

collected and accurately reported to the 

Department and the public. As 

explained in more detail in the 

following paragraphs, the Department’s 

assessment is that States need TA to 

improve their data collection capacity 

and their ability to analyze that data to 

ensure that the data are accurate and 

can be reported to the Department and 

the public, as applicable. States also 

need TA to help them analyze the data 

available to them so that they can each 

provide, in their SPPs and APRs, more 

accurate qualitative information about 

their efforts to improve implementation 

of the requirements and purposes of the 

IDEA, and to more accurately target 

future improvement activities. 

Improve data infrastructures. In order 

to meet IDEA data requirements, States 

must have the capacity to collect and 

analyze data on a variety of data 

elements, including but not limited to: 

Child and student background 

characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, 

limited English proficient status, 

gender, disability category); early 

intervention service setting; percentage 

of time in the general education 

classroom; student performance on 

statewide assessments, including the 

name of each assessment; personnel 

serving students with disabilities and 

their qualifications; the use of dispute 

resolution processes to resolve 

differences between parents and 

program providers; the incidence of 

disciplinary actions; and financial data. 

Under IDEA, collecting and reporting 

accurate and timely IDEA data is the 

responsibility of the State agencies 

responsible for implementing IDEA, but, 

in practice, multiple offices collect and 

report IDEA data, and they often do not 

effectively share data with one another 

or govern the quality of the data. This 

reduces the accuracy and timeliness of 

the data ultimately reported to the 

Department. For example, the EDFacts 

Coordinator in each State educational 

agency submits IDEA child count, 

educational environments, personnel, 

exiting, discipline, and assessment data 

for children with disabilities to the 

Department, as well as required data 

about children with disabilities for other 

educational program offices. A 

description of EDFacts can be found at 

www.ed.gov/edfacts. State general 

education authorities, specifically State 

assessment offices, are responsible for 

collecting accurate participation and 

performance assessment data about 

students with and without disabilities 

for multiple State data submissions to 

the Department, including IDEA. State 

special education program offices, 

however, do not always have access to 

the IDEA data collected and submitted 

by other State offices, which can 

compromise data validity and 

reliability. 

The Department’s review of all the 

quantitative IDEA data revealed that 

IDEA assessment and IDEA discipline 

data have the most frequent data errors. 

Data elements for both of these required 

IDEA data collections often are in data 

systems that are generally not accessible 

to or managed by State special 

education offices, which points to the 

need to develop a coordinated IDEA 

data infrastructure. For example, IDEA 

requires that States report annually to 

the Secretary and the public the number 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46660 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3For IDEA purposes, State Operated Programs 

include elementary/secondary programs operated 

by the State for children who are deaf or blind. ’’ 

State Operated’’ is defined by the National Center 

for Education Statistics for the Common Core of 

Data collection. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/ 

pesagencies09/glossary.asp. Procedures for 

reporting IDEA data from State Operated Programs 

are described in the data reporting hierarchy on 

page 58, Section 9.1 of www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/ 

edfacts/eden/11–12-workbook-8–0.pdf. 

4Education Department General Administrative 

Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 76.720. 

and percentage of children with 

disabilities who are expelled as 

compared to children without 

disabilities who are expelled. Yet 

expulsion data for students without 

disabilities is not consistently collected 

by States, which means that required 

comparisons cannot be accurately 

reported. Improving the accuracy of 

IDEA discipline data about students 

with and without disabilities requires 

coordination with non-special 

education offices and personnel. States, 

therefore, need TA to build data 

collection and reporting capacity within 

the context of multiple data systems and 

program offices, particularly when State 

special education offices do not manage 

the operating procedures or have direct 

access to the data needed for IDEA 

reporting. States also need TA to 

enhance their capacity to use data 

systems to collect valid and reliable 

data; analyze data to ensure their 

validity and reliability; submit accurate 

and timely data; adjust to constantly 

changing technology; protect privacy, 

confidentiality, and security of the data; 

and enhance data governance strategies 

to resolve data issues that involve 

multiple State program offices. In our 

experience, TA provided to States is 

most effective when it is provided on a 

coordinated basis across relevant 

Department offices, State offices, and 

data TA providers (e.g., State Support 

Teams working with Statewide 

Longitudinal Data Systems that include 

IDEA data). 

Strengthen data validation 

procedures. After data collection occurs 

at the local level and prior to the 

submission of IDEA data to the 

Department, States must have effective 

systematic data validation procedures to 

ensure the accuracy of data submitted to 

the Department. 

Many States do not have effective data 

validation procedures in place. The 

Department has found that States 

frequently submit IDEA data with 

preventable errors such as missing data 

values or data that conflict with State 

policies (e.g., reporting 15-year-old 

students as exiting special education 

due to graduating with a regular high 

school diploma when the State 

minimum age of graduation is 17). To 

ensure that data are valid and reliable, 

it is important to build the capacity of 

States by providing TA prior to and 

immediately following their data 

submission to the Department. TA 

should be provided on matters such as 

(a) ensuring that State special education 

program staff have appropriate access to 

data before the data are submitted to the 

Department so that special education 

program staff can conduct thorough data 

validation procedures on IDEA data, (b) 

improving reliability across data 

collectors, and (c) enhancing automated 

validation procedures (e.g., business 

rules in the data system and correction 

of identified errors). 

Ensure data are collected and 

reported from all relevant programs. 

States need TA to ensure that data from 

all State and local programs, districts, 

and schools that are providing IDEA 

services to children with disabilities are 

appropriately included in relevant data 

collections and that the State is 

reporting data at all appropriate levels 

(e.g., State, district, school, early 

intervention program) for every APR 

indicator and for all data required in 

section 618(a) of the IDEA. In its review 

of IDEA data, the Department found, for 

example, that not all State Operated 

Programs for children who are deaf or 

blind,3 juvenile justice centers, or 

charter schools are included in the IDEA 

data reports submitted via EDFacts. The 

Department has also identified instances 

of State-level data omissions and 

duplicate reporting. 

Problems with collecting and 

reporting data from all relevant 

programs has become even more evident 

in recent years. In 2007, the Department 

issued regulations 4 requiring that States 

submit reports in the manner prescribed 

by the Secretary and at the quality level 

(e.g., level of data accuracy and 

completeness) specified in the data 

collection instrument. The reporting 

system prescribed by the Secretary was 

EDFacts, and this regulation resulted in 

changes to the State data reporting 

procedures for data required in section 

618 of the IDEA about children and 

students ages 3 through 21 (school-age). 

Further, in order to continue improving 

the quality of the IDEA data 

submissions, data collected by States at 

LEA and school levels are also reported 

through EDFacts. In 2011, data required 

in section 618 of the IDEA for schoolage children were reported by States for 

nearly 15,000 LEAs and almost 100,000 

schools through EDFacts. 

Given this increase in reporting, the 

associated challenges of managing the 

submissions, and the increased use of 

the LEA- and school-level data by the 

Department for reviewing data and 

understanding IDEA implementation 

within States, it has become even more 

important for States to ensure that all 

programs, agencies, and schools serving 

children with disabilities collect and 

accurately report the required IDEA 

data. 

Address personnel training needs. 

States need TA to address the diverse 

training needs of personnel who collect 

and report data about students with 

disabilities in all of their programs, 

agencies, and schools. School-, LEA-, 

and State-level IDEA data, as well as 

non-IDEA data about school-age 

students with disabilities, are collected 

and used to meet data collection 

requirements for multiple Department 

programs (e.g., Consolidated State 

Performance Report under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965; Civil Rights Data 

Collection). In its review of the data 

collection and analysis capacity of 

States, the Department found that States 

need TA to help them ensure that local 

data collectors understand the 

similarities and the differences between 

the data requirements for IDEA and nonIDEA data collections that include data 

elements about students with 

disabilities and special education 

personnel. For example, the Department 

found errors in IDEA data about special 

education teachers because personnel 

collecting and reporting local data were 

not clear about the differences between 

the number of core content classes 

taught by highly qualified teachers 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, and the IDEA 

data about the number of special 

education teachers hired to provide 

services to students with disabilities. 

The Department found that some States 

submitted the same counts for both data 

collections. That is, some States 

reported the same number of core 

content classes taught by highly 

qualified teachers (as submitted for the 

Consolidated State Performance Report) 

as they did for the number of special 

education teachers who were highly 

qualified (as submitted for the IDEA 

personnel data collection). The data 

elements appear similar because both 

measure some aspect of teacher 

qualifications, but one is about reporting 

a count of core content classrooms and 

the other is about reporting the number 

of special education teachers hired. 

Through TA to the State, differences in 

reporting requirements can be clarified 

and corrected so that local personnel 

who collect, and State personnel who 

report, IDEA data understand and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46661 

accurately report the data to the 

Department. 

In annual meetings with State IDEA 

Data Managers and EDFacts 

Coordinators, State personnel have 

identified an urgent need for userfriendly instructional materials about 

IDEA data collections that can be used 

within and across States to enhance the 

capacity of staff in agencies, programs, 

schools, and districts to support 

accurate data collection at the local 

level. Examples of TA products and 

services about IDEA data that are 

needed by every State include training 

modules and webinars that are targeted 

to local staff who collect data regarding 

children with disabilities. 

Support transition of data into 

EDFacts. States need continued TA to 

accurately report all IDEA data required 

in section 618(a) of the IDEA in the 

manner prescribed by the Secretary. 

This includes moving Part C data 

reporting into EDFacts from a legacy 

data collection system that was formerly 

used by the Department to collect IDEA 

data. EDFacts relies on the Education 

Data Exchange Network (EDEN) 

Submission System, a centralized portal 

through which States submit their 

education data, including IDEA data, to 

the Department. The EDFacts 

submission procedures must be 

understood by the grantee who is 

funded so that the grantee can provide 

TA that enhances State capacity to 

collect and report timely and accurate 

IDEA data. 

Increase State communication with 

local data collectors about data 

validation results. States need TA to 

strengthen the validity of data through 

targeted analyses of data and 

communication of results to local data 

collectors and data consumers (e.g., 

school boards; EIS programs and 

providers; parents of infants, toddlers, 

and children with disabilities; and the 

public). Currently, limited information 

from the State goes back to local data 

collectors after data have been compiled 

by the State. State IDEA Data Managers 

and EDFacts Coordinators note the 

importance of communicating results 

back to schools, LEAs, agencies, and EIS 

programs and providers in a format that 

is understandable to the local programs. 

State EDFacts Coordinators and IDEA 

Data Managers have asked for TA on 

ways to expand opportunities for local 

program staff to actively participate in 

data validation processes and create 

local processes to correct the data before 

it is submitted to the Department by 

building tools for organizing data in a 

meaningful way for data consumers 

(e.g., data dashboards for 

Superintendents). 

Improve accuracy of qualitative 

information in the APRs and strengthen 

improvement activities. States need TA 

to improve the accuracy of qualitative 

information provided in the APR and to 

more clearly target future improvement 

activities that are based on the 

qualitative and quantitative IDEA data 

available to the State. Examples of data 

quality issues (e.g., States did not use 

the source data specified in the 

instructions) are included in APR 

summary documents that are publicly 

available. The 2010 Part B SPP/APR 

Analysis Document is available at 

http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/ 

1684 and the 2010 Part C SPP/APR 

Analysis Document is available at 

http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/ 

746. Data quality issues with 

accompanying improvement activities 

are posted in individual State response 

letters publicly posted at www2.ed.gov/ 

fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/ 

index.html. 

To meet the array of complex 

challenges regarding the collection, 

analysis, and reporting of data by States, 

the Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) proposes to support 

the establishment and operation of a 

National Technical Assistance Center to 

Improve State Capacity to Accurately 

Collect and Report IDEA Data. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary proposes 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 the IDEA data collection and 

reporting requirements by: 

(a) Improving data infrastructure by 

coordinating and facilitating 

communication and effective data 

governance strategies among relevant 

State offices, LEAs, schools, EIS 

programs, 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 offices 

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 collecting 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. 

To be considered for funding under 

this absolute priority, applicants must 

meet the application requirements 

contained in this priority. Any projects 

funded under this priority also must 

meet the programmatic and 

administrative requirements specified in 

the priority. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46662 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5For information about universal/general, 

targeted/specialized, and intensive/sustained TA, 

see http://tadnet.org/uploads/File/ 

TAD%20concept%20framework%2011-18-09.swf. 

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 proposed 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 proposed 

project’s logic model, 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 

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; 

(2) A three-day Project Directors’ 

Conference in Washington, DC, during 

each year of the project period; 

(3) A two-day Leveraging Resources 

Conference in Washington, DC, during 

each year of the project; 

(4) A two-day EDFacts Coordinators 

Meeting each year held in various 

locations; 

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

the Department to participate in 

meetings about IDEA data; attend 

EDFacts Data Governance Board (EDGB) 

monthly meetings; conduct conference 

sessions with program staff from States, 

LEAs, schools, EIS programs, or other 

local programs who contribute to the 

State data system to meet IDEA data 

collection requirements (e.g., National 

Center on Education Statistics 

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-supportunit/index.html), and EDFacts Partner 

Support Center (see www2.ed.gov/ 

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

and attend other meetings requested by 

OSEP; and 

(f) A line item in the proposed budget 

for an annual set-aside of four percent 

of the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s activities, as those 

needs are identified in consultation 

with OSEP. 

Note: With approval from the OSEP Project 

Officer, the 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 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 for local entities to 

accurately collect and report data 

required in section 618 of the IDEA (e.g., 

data reporting instructions targeted to 

local service providers and data 

collectors) and section 616 of the IDEA 

to accurately complete APR indicators 

each year; tools must be designed to 

improve the capacity of States to meet 

IDEA data requirements. 

TA and Dissemination Activities 

(a) Provide technical assistance 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 ongoing, timely TA about 

IDEA data requirements (e.g., how to 

account for students’ time in school 

during non-academic time, such as 

during lunchtime, when determining 

how much time each student with a 

disability spends in the general 

education setting) using a toll-free 

number and electronic communication 

that is coordinated with other relevant 

TA providers; all TA inquiries and 

responses must be logged using 

standardized procedures that will be 

developed by the grantee and be 

accessible to the OSEP Project Officer; 

(d) Provide a range of general and 

targeted TA products and services 5 on 

evidence-based practices that promote 

valid and reliable data and build the 

capacity of data collectors to collect 

valid and reliable data; all TA must 

improve the capacity of States to meet 

IDEA data requirements; 

(e) Conduct approximately eight 

intensive on-site TA visits each year 

that will improve 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 program and State levels. All 

intensive TA visits should include State 

Data Managers, EDFacts Coordinators 

(as appropriate), and other relevant 

State parties. The TA visits may include 

local data collectors or reporters, such 

as representatives from local early 

intervention programs and focus on: (1) 

An identified data validity issue or 

system capacity issue; (2) measurable 

outcomes; and (3) ‘‘mapping’’ the 

relationship of the data validity issue or 

system capacity issue with other IDEA 

data elements (i.e., identifying all IDEA 

data elements that are affected by the 

data validity issue or system capacity 

issue); 

(f) Plan and conduct local-level data 

analytic workshops, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46663 

professionals from a small group of 

LEAs or EIS programs and 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., equity in disciplinary practices) 

and lead to plans with improvement 

activities that can be used by the 

programs or LEAs to meet IDEA data 

requirements, as well as inform Statelevel data quality initiatives; 

(g) Maintain a Web site that meets 

government or industry-recognized 

standards for accessibility that is 

targeted to local and State data 

collectors. TA material developed by the 

Data Center must be posted on the site; 

(h) Support States in verifying the 

accuracy and completeness of IDEA data 

submissions, including ensuring that 

data are consistent with data about 

students with disabilities reported in 

other data collections (e.g., ensure 

counts of students with disabilities that 

are reported for IDEA purposes align 

appropriately with counts reported for 

other Federal programs); 

(i) Compile recommendations from 

States about 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 State to verify 

the accuracy of improbable data prior to 

completion of the submission (e.g., no 

data where non-zero counts are 

expected); 

(j) Quickly respond to inquiries 

related to correcting data validation 

errors, clarifying submission 

procedures, or identifying specific data 

reporting instructions. The Department 

estimates approximately 400 individual 

inquiries (e.g., phone or email) will be 

received each year; many of these 

inquiries will be immediately before the 

deadline for States to make a data 

submission; 

(k) Prepare and disseminate reports, 

documents, and other materials on 

topics deemed beneficial for supporting 

States in accurately meeting IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements; 

(l) Develop guidance documents and 

tools to be used by States to 

communicate with local data collectors 

about new or changing data 

requirements using current technology; 

(m) Support States in meeting APR 

submission requirements, including— 

(1) As needed, evaluate sampling 

plans developed by States to report APR 

data based on a sample of districts, 

schools, or EIS programs; 

(2) Evaluating the quality, accuracy, 

and validity of SPP and APR 

quantitative data and developing and 

providing a summary report for OSEP’s 

annual APR Indicator Analyses report 

so that it can identify State TA needs for 

accurate collection, analysis, and 

reporting of IDEA data; and 

(3) Using results from the 

Department’s review of APR data to 

support States in their analysis of 

available data so that States can provide 

more accurate qualitative information to 

the Department about its efforts to 

improve its implementation of the 

requirements and purposes of the IDEA, 

and to more accurately target its future 

improvement activities. 

Leadership and Coordination Activities 

(a) Consult with a group of persons, 

including representatives from State and 

local educational agencies and State 

Part C Lead Agencies and local 

programs; 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, 

as appropriate, on the activities and 

outcomes of the Center and solicit 

programmatic support and advice from 

various participants in the group, as 

appropriate. The Center may convene 

meetings, whether in person, by phone 

or other means, for this purpose, or may 

consult with group participants 

individually. The Center must identify 

the members of the group to OSEP 

within eight weeks after receipt of the 

award; 

(b) Communicate and coordinate, on 

an ongoing basis, with other 

Department-funded projects, including 

those using data to support States, to: (1) 

Develop products to improve data 

collection capacity (e.g., Doing What 

Works Clearinghouse); (2) support State 

monitoring of IDEA implementation 

through data use; or (3) develop and 

disseminate resources about privacy 

issues (e.g., Privacy TA Center (PTAC); 

see www.ed.gov/ptac); and 

(c) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the OSEP Project Officer. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications we 

designate the priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational. 

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 either (1) awarding 

additional points, depending on how 

well or the extent to which the 

application meets the competitive 

preference priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the competitive 

preference priority over an application 

of comparable merit that does not meet 

the competitive preference priority (34 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

invitational priority. However, we do 

not give an application that meets the 

invitational priority a competitive or 

absolute preference over other 

applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing or funding 

additional priorities, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this proposed priority, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this 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 

on 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 taking this regulatory action 

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. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened Federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: August 1, 2012. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19162 Filed 8–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079; FRL–9708–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Alabama: General and Transportation 

Conformity & New Source Review 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

changes to the Alabama State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM) to 

EPA on May 2, 2011. The SIP revision 

modifies Alabama’s New Source Review 

(NSR), Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD), and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) programs 

as well as general and transportation 

conformity regulations. Specifically, the 

May 2, 2011, SIP revision adopts federal 

NSR permitting requirements provisions 

into the Alabama SIP regarding 

implementation of the PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 

revises the State’s NNSR rules, and 

updates the State’s general and 

transportation conformity regulations. 

All changes in the May 2, 2011, SIP 

revision are necessary to comply with 

federal requirements. EPA is proposing 

approval of Alabama’s May 2, 2011, 

revision to the Alabama SIP because the 

Agency has preliminarily determined 

that the changes are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0079, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS