Final Priority and Requirements-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program-Targeted and Intensive Technical Assistance to States on the Analysis and Use of Formative and Summative Assessment Data To Support Implementation of States' Identified Measurable Result(s), 47296-47300 [2016-17323]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47296
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[ED–2016–OSERS–0024; CFDA Number:
84.373A.]
Final Priority and Requirements—
Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection Program—Targeted and
Intensive Technical Assistance to
States on the Analysis and Use of
Formative and Summative Assessment
Data To Support Implementation of
States’ Identified Measurable Result(s)
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS),
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority and
requirements under the Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection
program. The Assistant Secretary may
use this priority for competitions in
fiscal year (FY) 2016 and later years. We
take this action to focus attention on an
identified need to address national,
State, and local assessment issues
related to students with disabilities,
including students with disabilities who
are also English Learners (ELs).
DATES: This priority and these
requirements are effective August 22,
2016.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Egnor, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–5076.
Telephone: (202) 245–7334 or by email:
david.egnor@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.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program is to improve the
capacity of States to meet the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) data collection and reporting
requirements. Funding for this program
is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of
IDEA, which gives the Secretary the
authority to reserve funds appropriated
under Part B of the IDEA to provide
technical assistance activities
authorized under section 616(i) of IDEA.
Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the
Secretary to review the data collection
and analysis capacity of States to ensure
that data and information determined
necessary for implementation of IDEA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
section 616 are collected, analyzed, and
accurately reported to the Secretary. It
also requires the Secretary to provide
technical assistance, where needed, to
improve the capacity of States to meet
the data collection requirements under
IDEA Parts B and C, which include the
data collection and reporting
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c)
and 1416(i).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR 300.702.
We published a notice of proposed
priority and requirements for this
program in the Federal Register on
March 23, 2016 (81 FR 15491). That
notice contained background
information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority and
requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priority and requirements, we did not
receive any comments on the proposed
priority and requirements. However, as
a result of our further review of the
proposed priority and requirements
since publication of the notice of
proposed priority and requirements, we
have made changes as follows:
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
Comment: None.
Discussion: As a result of our further
review, we realized that a few items in
the priority could benefit from further
clarification. First, we have changed the
title of the priority to be more
descriptive. Second, we clarified that
references to ‘‘assessment’’ in the
priority include both formative and
summative assessments. Third, to
clarify how we intend for applicants to
address logic models, we deleted some
references to ‘‘logic model’’ and instead
included a note directing the reader to
additional information on the meaning
of the term.
Changes: We have changed the title of
the priority to: ‘‘Targeted and Intensive
Technical Assistance to States on the
Analysis and Use of Formative and
Summative Assessment Data to Support
Implementation of States’ Identified
Measurable Result(s).’’ We have
modified, as appropriate, references to
assessment describing ‘‘formative and
summative’’ assessments, deleted
references to ‘‘logic model’’ and inserted
a note directing the reader to additional
information on the meaning of the term,
and made other technical changes.
FINAL PRIORITY: Targeted and
Intensive Technical Assistance to States
on the Analysis and Use of Formative
and Summative Assessment Data to
Support Implementation of States’
Identified Measurable Result(s).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Priority: The purpose of this priority
is to (1) assist States in analyzing and
using assessment data to better achieve
the States’ Identified Measurable
Result(s) (SIMR) as described in their
IDEA Part B State Systemic
Improvement Plans (SSIPs), and (2)
assist State efforts to provide technical
assistance (TA) to local educational
agencies (LEAs) in analyzing and using
State and districtwide assessment data
to better achieve the SIMR, as
appropriate.
The Center must achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of State
educational agency (SEA) personnel to
analyze and use assessment data to
better achieve the SIMR described in the
IDEA Part B SSIP, including using
assessment data to evaluate and
improve educational policy, inform
instructional programs, and improve
instruction for students with
disabilities; and
(b) Increased capacity of SEA
personnel to provide TA to LEAs in the
analysis and use of State and
districtwide assessment data to improve
instruction of students with disabilities
and better achieve the SIMR.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
FINAL REQUIREMENTS: The
Assistant Secretary establishes the
following requirements for this program.
We may apply these requirements in
any year in which this program is in
effect.
Requirements: Applications that:
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Significance of the Project,’’ how the
proposed project will—
(1) Address the needs of SEAs and
LEAs to analyze and use formative and
summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities. To meet this
requirement the applicant must—
(i) Present applicable national, State,
and local data demonstrating the needs
of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use
formative and summative assessment
data in instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current
educational issues and policy initiatives
related to analyzing and using formative
and summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(iii) Describe the current level of
implementation related to analyzing and
using formative and summative
assessment data in instructional
decision-making to improve teaching
and learning for students with
disabilities.
(2) Improve the analysis and use of
formative and summative assessment
data to improve teaching and learning
for students with disabilities.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Quality of the Project Services,’’ how
the proposed project will—
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment
for members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented
based on race, color, national origin,
gender, age, or disability. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
describe how it will—
(i) Identify the needs of the intended
recipients for TA and information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services
meet the needs of the intended
recipients (e.g., by creating materials in
formats and languages accessible to the
stakeholders served by the intended
recipients);
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and
intended outcomes. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
provide—
(i) Measurable intended project
outcomes; and
(ii) The logic model by which the
proposed project will achieve its
intended outcomes;
(3) Use a conceptual framework to
develop project plans and activities,
describing any underlying concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or
theories, as well as the presumed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
relationships or linkages among these
variables, and any empirical support for
this framework;
Note: While section 77.1(c) of the
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)
contains a definition for ‘‘logic model,’’
the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP), based upon its
experience in this area, has been using
the above definition as standard
language for the OSEP Technical
Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D)
program priorities. OSEP’s definition
establishes a difference between logic
models and conceptual frameworks
whereas 34 CFR 77.1(c) considers the
model to be one and the same. The
following Web sites provide more
information on logic models:
www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/
resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/
tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptualframework.
(4) Be based on current research and
make use of practices supported by
evidence. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe—
(i) The current research on the
effectiveness of analyzing and using
formative and summative assessment
data in instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities; and
(ii) How the proposed project will
incorporate current practices supported
by evidence in the development and
delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide
services that are of high quality and
sufficient intensity and duration to
achieve the intended outcomes of the
proposed project. To address this
requirement, the applicant must
describe—
(i) How it proposes to identify or
develop the knowledge base on
analyzing and using formative and
summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(ii) Its proposed approach to
universal, general TA,1 which must
identify the intended recipients of the
1 ‘‘Universal, general TA’’ means TA and
information provided to independent users through
their own initiative, resulting in minimal
interaction with TA center staff and including onetime, invited or offered conference presentations by
TA center staff. This category of TA also includes
information or products, such as newsletters,
guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded
from the TA center’s Web site by independent
users. Brief communications by TA center staff with
recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47297
products and services under this
approach;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted,
specialized TA,2 which must identify—
(A) The intended recipients of the
products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure
the readiness of potential TA recipients
to work with the project, assessing, at a
minimum, their current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to
intensive, sustained TA,3 which must
identify—
(A) The intended recipients of the
products and services under this
approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure
the readiness of SEA and LEA personnel
to work with the project, including their
commitment to the initiative, alignment
of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and
ability to build capacity at the SEA and
LEA levels;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting
SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction with
SEAs) to build training systems that
include professional development based
on adult learning principles and
coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with
appropriate levels of the education
system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA
providers, LEAs, schools, and families)
to ensure that there is communication
between each level and that there are
systems in place to support the
collection, analysis, and use of
formative and summative assessment
data in instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating
and coordinating with Departmentfunded TA investments and the Institute
2 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA services
based on needs common to multiple recipients and
not extensively individualized. A relationship is
established between the TA recipient and one or
more TA center staff. This category of TA includes
one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national
conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive events that extend over a period of time,
such as facilitating a series of conference calls on
single or multiple topics that are designed around
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating
communities of practice can also be considered
targeted, specialized TA.
3 ‘‘Intensive, sustained TA’’ means TA services
often provided on-site and requiring a stable,
ongoing relationship between the TA center staff
and the TA recipient. ‘‘TA services’’ are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a
valued outcome. This category of TA should result
in changes to policy, program, practice, or
operations that support increased recipient capacity
or improved outcomes at one or more systems
levels.
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
47298
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
of Education Sciences (IES) research
and development investments, where
appropriate, in order to align
complementary work and jointly
develop and implement products and
services to meet the purposes of this
priority;
(6) Develop products and implement
services that maximize efficiency. To
address this requirement, the applicant
must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will use
technology to achieve the intended
project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project
will collaborate and the intended
outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will
use non-project resources to achieve the
intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the
application under ‘‘Quality of the
Evaluation Plan,’’ include an evaluation
plan for the project as described in the
following paragraphs. The evaluation
plan must describe: Measures of
progress in implementation, including
the extent to which the project’s
products and services have reached its
target population; and measures of
intended outcomes or results of the
project’s activities in order to assess the
effectiveness of those activities.
In designing the evaluation plan, the
project must—
(1) Designate, with the approval of the
OSEP project officer, a project liaison
staff person with sufficient dedicated
time, experience in evaluation, and
knowledge of the project to work in
collaboration with the Center to
Improve Project Performance (CIPP),4
the project director, and the OSEP
project officer on the following tasks:
(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model
submitted in the grant application to
provide for a more comprehensive
measurement of implementation and
outcomes and to reflect any changes or
clarifications to the model discussed at
the kick-off meeting;
(ii) Refine the evaluation design and
instrumentation proposed in the grant
application consistent with the logic
model (e.g., preparing evaluation
questions about significant program
4 The major tasks of CIPP are to guide, coordinate,
and oversee the design of formative evaluations for
every large discretionary investment (i.e., those
awarded $500,000 or more per year and required to
participate in the 3 + 2 process) in OSEP’s
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel
Development; Parent Training and Information
Centers; and Educational Technology, Media, and
Materials programs. The efforts of CIPP are
expected to enhance individual project evaluation
plans by providing expert and unbiased technical
assistance in designing the evaluations with due
consideration of the project’s budget. CIPP does not
function as a third-party evaluator.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
processes and outcomes, developing
quantitative or qualitative data
collections that permit both the
collection of progress data, including
fidelity of implementation, as
appropriate, and progress toward
achieving intended outcomes, selecting
respondent samples if appropriate,
designing instruments or identifying
data sources, and identifying analytic
strategies); and
(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation
plan submitted in the grant application
such that it clearly—
(A) Specifies the measures and
associated instruments or sources for
data appropriate to the evaluation
questions, suggests analytic strategies
for those data, provides a timeline for
conducting the evaluation, and includes
staff assignments for completion of the
plan;
(B) Delineates the data expected to be
available by the end of the second
project year for use during the project’s
intensive review for continued funding
described under the heading Fourth and
Fifth Years of the Project; and
(C) Can be used to assist the project
director and the OSEP project officer,
with the assistance of CIPP, as needed,
to specify the performance measures to
be addressed in the project’s Annual
Performance Report;
(2) Cooperate with CIPP staff in order
to accomplish the tasks described in
paragraph (1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each
budget year to cover the costs of
carrying out the tasks described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section
and implementing the evaluation plan.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’
how—
(1) The proposed project will
encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of
groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color,
national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project
personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications
and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the
project’s intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key
partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable
in relation to the anticipated results and
benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Quality of the Management Plan,’’
how—
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(1) The proposed management plan
will ensure that the project’s intended
outcomes will be achieved on time and
within budget. To address this
requirement, the applicant must
describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for
key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for
accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any
consultants and subcontractors will be
allocated to the project and how these
allocations are appropriate and adequate
to achieve the project’s intended
outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan
will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality;
and
(4) The proposed project will benefit
from a diversity of perspectives,
including those of families, educators,
TA providers, researchers, and policy
makers, among others, in its
development and operation.
(f) Address the following application
requirements. The applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic
model that depicts, at a minimum, the
goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project. A
logic model communicates how a
project will achieve its intended
outcomes and provides a framework for
both the formative and summative
evaluations of the project.
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a
conceptual framework for the project;
(3) Include, in Appendix A, personloading charts and timelines, as
applicable, to illustrate the management
plan described in the narrative;
(4) Include, in the budget, attendance
at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off
meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt
of the award, and an annual planning
meeting in Washington, DC, with the
OSEP project officer and other relevant
staff during each subsequent year of the
project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the
award, a post-award teleconference
must be held between the OSEP project
officer and the grantee’s project director
or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and a half day project
directors’ meeting in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project period;
(iii) Three trips annually to attend
Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other
meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3 + 2 review
meeting in Washington, DC, during the
last half of the second year of the project
period;
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Include, in the budget, a line item
for an annual set-aside of five percent of
the grant amount to support emerging
needs that are consistent with the
proposed project’s intended outcomes,
as those needs are identified in
consultation with OSEP.
Note: With approval from the OSEP
project officer, the project must
reallocate any remaining funds from this
annual set-aside no later than the end of
the third quarter of each budget period;
and
(6) Maintain a Web site that meets
government or industry-recognized
standards for accessibility.
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), as
well as—
(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 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 products and
services and the extent to which the
project’s products and services are
aligned with the project’s objectives and
likely to result in the project achieving
its intended outcomes.
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 and these
requirements, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47299
We are issuing this final priority and
requirements only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify
their 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 TA projects have
been well-established over the years in
that other TA projects have been
completed successfully. The priority
announced in this notice will improve
the capacity of States to meet the IDEA
data collection and reporting
requirements, including (1) increased
capacity of SEA personnel to analyze
and use assessment data to better
achieve the SIMR described in the IDEA
Part B SSIP through means such as the
use of formative and summative
assessment data to evaluate and
improve educational policy, inform
instructional programs and improve
instruction for students with
disabilities; and (2) increased capacity
of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs
in the analysis and use of State and
districtwide assessment data to improve
instruction of students with disabilities
and better achieve the SIMR.
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 Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
47300
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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: July 18, 2016.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2016–17323 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0241; FRL–9948–08–
Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, El Dorado County Air
Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the El
Dorado County Air Quality Management
District (EDCAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
SUMMARY:
(SIP). We are approving a local
emergency episode plan that describes
actions that EDCAQMD must take in the
event of dangerously high ambient
ozone concentrations levels under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 19, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse
comments by August 22, 2016. If we
receive such comments, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2016–0241 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947 4115, Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What plan did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this plan?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
plan?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the plan?
B. Does the plan meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What plan did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the plan addressed by
this action with the date that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED PLAN
Local agency
Plan title
EDCAQMD .......................................
Ozone Emergency Episode Plan ..............................................................
On April 21, 2016, the EPA
determined that EDCAQMD’s Ozone
Emergency Episode Plan submittal met
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this plan?
There are no previous versions of this
plan adopted by EDCAQMD or
approved by EPA in the SIP.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
plan?
The CAA requires the EPA to
establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and five
other pollutants that are harmful to
public health and the environment.
Each state is required to submit to the
EPA, within three years after the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Jul 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
Adopted
promulgation of a primary or secondary
NAAQS, or any revision thereof, an
infrastructure SIP revision that provides
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such NAAQS. CAA
section 110(a)(2) describes the contents
required of such a plan that constitute
the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air
quality management program. The
EDCAQMD Ozone Emergency Episode
Plan is intended to fulfill the CAA
§ 110(a)(2)(G) infrastructure SIP
requirement.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the plan?
SIPs must be enforceable (see CAA
section 110(a)(2)) and SIP revisions are
restricted in how they can relax
approved SIPs. This plan must also
meet the infrastructure SIP requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
01/12/16
Submitted
04/06/16
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and EPA’s
implementing regulations found in 40
CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150 through
51.153).
Guidance that we used to evaluate
section 110(a)(2) CAA requirements
includes: ‘‘Guidance Document for
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Elements under Clean Air Act
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’, EPA
(September 2013).
B. Does the plan meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe this plan is consistent
with the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations
and infrastructure SIPs. The EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) has
more information about this plan and
our evaluation.
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47296-47300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17323]
[[Page 47296]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[ED-2016-OSERS-0024; CFDA Number: 84.373A.]
Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection Program--Targeted and Intensive Technical Assistance to
States on the Analysis and Use of Formative and Summative Assessment
Data To Support Implementation of States' Identified Measurable
Result(s)
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority and requirements under the
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2016 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an
identified need to address national, State, and local assessment issues
related to students with disabilities, including students with
disabilities who are also English Learners (ELs).
DATES: This priority and these requirements are effective August 22,
2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Egnor, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334 or by email:
david.egnor@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 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data
collection and reporting requirements. Funding for this program is
authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary
the authority to reserve funds appropriated under Part B of the IDEA to
provide technical assistance activities authorized under section 616(i)
of IDEA. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the
data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and
information determined necessary for implementation of IDEA section 616
are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It
also requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance, where
needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection
requirements under IDEA Parts B and C, which include the data
collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 1416(i).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements for
this program in the Federal Register on March 23, 2016 (81 FR 15491).
That notice contained background information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority and requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority and requirements, we did not receive any comments on
the proposed priority and requirements. However, as a result of our
further review of the proposed priority and requirements since
publication of the notice of proposed priority and requirements, we
have made changes as follows:
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
Comment: None.
Discussion: As a result of our further review, we realized that a
few items in the priority could benefit from further clarification.
First, we have changed the title of the priority to be more
descriptive. Second, we clarified that references to ``assessment'' in
the priority include both formative and summative assessments. Third,
to clarify how we intend for applicants to address logic models, we
deleted some references to ``logic model'' and instead included a note
directing the reader to additional information on the meaning of the
term.
Changes: We have changed the title of the priority to: ``Targeted
and Intensive Technical Assistance to States on the Analysis and Use of
Formative and Summative Assessment Data to Support Implementation of
States' Identified Measurable Result(s).'' We have modified, as
appropriate, references to assessment describing ``formative and
summative'' assessments, deleted references to ``logic model'' and
inserted a note directing the reader to additional information on the
meaning of the term, and made other technical changes.
FINAL PRIORITY: Targeted and Intensive Technical Assistance to
States on the Analysis and Use of Formative and Summative Assessment
Data to Support Implementation of States' Identified Measurable
Result(s).
Priority: The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist States in
analyzing and using assessment data to better achieve the States'
Identified Measurable Result(s) (SIMR) as described in their IDEA Part
B State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs), and (2) assist State
efforts to provide technical assistance (TA) to local educational
agencies (LEAs) in analyzing and using State and districtwide
assessment data to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of State educational agency (SEA) personnel
to analyze and use assessment data to better achieve the SIMR described
in the IDEA Part B SSIP, including using assessment data to evaluate
and improve educational policy, inform instructional programs, and
improve instruction for students with disabilities; and
(b) Increased capacity of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs in
the analysis and use of State and districtwide assessment data to
improve instruction of students with disabilities and better achieve
the SIMR.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
FINAL REQUIREMENTS: The Assistant Secretary establishes the
following requirements for this program. We may apply these
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
Requirements: Applications that:
[[Page 47297]]
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use formative
and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities. To meet
this requirement the applicant must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, and local data
demonstrating the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use formative
and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives related to analyzing and using formative and summative
assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching
and learning for students with disabilities;
(iii) Describe the current level of implementation related to
analyzing and using formative and summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities.
(2) Improve the analysis and use of formative and summative
assessment data to improve teaching and learning for students with
disabilities.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients (e.g., by creating materials in formats and
languages accessible to the stakeholders served by the intended
recipients);
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its
intended outcomes;
(3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed
relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical
support for this framework;
Note: While section 77.1(c) of the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) contains a definition for ``logic
model,'' the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), based upon
its experience in this area, has been using the above definition as
standard language for the OSEP Technical Assistance and Dissemination
(TA&D) program priorities. OSEP's definition establishes a difference
between logic models and conceptual frameworks whereas 34 CFR 77.1(c)
considers the model to be one and the same. The following Web sites
provide more information on logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices
supported by evidence. To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
(i) The current research on the effectiveness of analyzing and
using formative and summative assessment data in instructional
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with
disabilities; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current practices
supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its products
and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on
analyzing and using formative and summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\1\ which must
identify the intended recipients of the products and services under
this approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's Web site by independent users. Brief communications by
TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are
also considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\2\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\3\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this
approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA
personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at
the SEA and LEA levels;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction
with SEAs) to build training systems that include professional
development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to support the collection, analysis,
and use of formative and summative assessment data in instructional
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with
disabilities;
(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded TA investments and the Institute
[[Page 47298]]
of Education Sciences (IES) research and development investments, where
appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop
and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this
priority;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the Evaluation Plan,'' include an evaluation plan for the project as
described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must
describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent
to which the project's products and services have reached its target
population; and measures of intended outcomes or results of the
project's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those
activities.
In designing the evaluation plan, the project must--
(1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a
project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience
in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration
with the Center to Improve Project Performance (CIPP),\4\ the project
director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The major tasks of CIPP are to guide, coordinate, and
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per
year and required to participate in the 3 + 2 process) in OSEP's
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development;
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology,
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIPP are expected to
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and
unbiased technical assistance in designing the evaluations with due
consideration of the project's budget. CIPP does not function as a
third-party evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the grant
application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of
implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or
clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;
(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in
the grant application consistent with the logic model (e.g., preparing
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes,
developing quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit
both the collection of progress data, including fidelity of
implementation, as appropriate, and progress toward achieving intended
outcomes, selecting respondent samples if appropriate, designing
instruments or identifying data sources, and identifying analytic
strategies); and
(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the grant
application such that it clearly--
(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic
strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the
evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completion of the plan;
(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the
second project year for use during the project's intensive review for
continued funding described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of
the Project; and
(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project
officer, with the assistance of CIPP, as needed, to specify the
performance measures to be addressed in the project's Annual
Performance Report;
(2) Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks
described in paragraph (1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section and implementing the evaluation plan.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the
proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve
its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative
and summative evaluations of the project.
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;
(3) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(4) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff
during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and a half day project directors' meeting in Washington,
DC, during each year of the project period;
(iii) Three trips annually to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3 + 2 review meeting in Washington, DC,
during the last half of the second year of the project period;
[[Page 47299]]
(5) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with OSEP.
Note: With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must
reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than
the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and
(6) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility.
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), as well
as--
(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 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
products and services and the extent to which the project's products
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
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 and these requirements, 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 and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their 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 TA projects have been well-established over the
years in that other TA projects have been completed successfully. The
priority announced in this notice will improve the capacity of States
to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting requirements, including
(1) increased capacity of SEA personnel to analyze and use assessment
data to better achieve the SIMR described in the IDEA Part B SSIP
through means such as the use of formative and summative assessment
data to evaluate and improve educational policy, inform instructional
programs and improve instruction for students with disabilities; and
(2) increased capacity of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs in the
analysis and use of State and districtwide assessment data to improve
instruction of students with disabilities and better achieve the SIMR.
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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you
must have
[[Page 47300]]
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: July 18, 2016.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-17323 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
