Proposed Priority-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-IDEA Fiscal Data Center, 24661-24666 [2014-10000]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24661-24666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2014-OSERS-0061; CFDA Number: 84.373F]


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

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

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

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email. Please submit your comments only 
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. 
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Matthew Schneer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., room 4169, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Schneer. Telephone: (202) 245-
6755 or by email: Matthew.Schneer@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
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.
    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 their IDEA data collection and reporting requirements under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Funding for the program is authorized 
under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary the 
authority to reserve funds appropriated under Part B of IDEA to provide 
TA activities authorized under section 616(i).\1\ 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 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 IDEA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2014 gives the Secretary the authority to use FY 2014 funds reserved 
under section 611(c) to assist the

[[Page 24662]]

Secretary to administer and carry out other services and activities to 
improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B 
and C of IDEA (Pub. L. 113-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to a statute in this priority are to sections 
of IDEA unless otherwise noted.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), and 1418(c); 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

Proposed Priority

    This notice contains one proposed priority. The priority is:

IDEA Fiscal Data Center

Background
    The purpose of this priority is to establish a Fiscal IDEA Data 
Center (Center) to provide States with TA for meeting their fiscal data 
collection and reporting obligations under IDEA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purposes of this priority, IDEA fiscal data refers 
specifically to two annual data submissions authorized under section 
618 of IDEA: (a) Section V of the Annual State Application under 
Part B of IDEA (Part B Annual Application); and (b) the LEA MOE/CEIS 
Collection, which was formerly referred to as the Report on 
Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening 
Services (Table 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the past four years, the Secretary has instituted two new 
fiscal data collections that apply to State educational agencies (SEAs) 
that administer Part B of IDEA: (a) IDEA Part B local educational 
agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated 
Early Intervening Services (CEIS) [LEA MOE/CEIS] Data Collection, added 
in Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009; and (b) Section V of the Part B 
Annual Application under IDEA (Section V), added in the FFY 2013 
application. States may suffer significant monetary consequences as a 
result of noncompliance identified through these data collections.

LEA MOE/CEIS Requirement

    Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.203(a), amounts provided to an LEA under 
Part B of IDEA shall not be used, except as provided in 34 CFR 300.204 
and 205, to reduce the level of expenditures for the education of 
children with disabilities made by the LEA below the level of 
expenditures for the preceding fiscal year. Pursuant to section 
613(a)(2)(C) and 34 CFR 300.205, in any fiscal year for which the IDEA 
section 611 subgrant received by an LEA exceeds the amount the LEA 
received for the previous fiscal year, and providing that the SEA has 
determined that the LEA is meeting the requirements of IDEA under 
section 616 and the SEA has not taken action against the LEA under 
section 616, the LEA may reduce the level of expenditures for the 
education of children with disabilities by not more than 50 percent of 
the amount of such excess in the current year's subgrant. Section 
613(a)(2)(C)(iv) provides that the amount of funds expended by an LEA 
for CEIS shall count toward the maximum amount of expenditures for the 
education of children with disabilities that an LEA may reduce under 
section 613(a)(2)(C). Consistent with long-standing Department 
practice, if an LEA fails to maintain its level of expenditures for the 
education of children with disabilities, the SEA is liable in a 
recovery action under 20 U.S.C. 1234a to return to the Department, from 
non-Federal funds or funds for which accountability to the Federal 
government is not required, an amount equal to the amount by which the 
LEA failed to maintain its level of expenditures.

LEA MOE/CEIS Data Collection Requirements and Calculations

    In order to meet the data collection requirement related to LEA 
MOE/CEIS, States must report the following data for all LEAs (including 
educational service agencies): (a) Section 611 and section 619 
allocation amounts; (b) The amount by which the LEA reduced its level 
of fiscal effort under 34 CFR 300.205 (LEA MOE reduction); (c) For each 
LEA that reserved funds for CEIS (required or voluntary), the dollar 
amount that was reserved; and (d) The number of children receiving 
CEIS. In addition, the SEA must provide the following information: (a) 
The relevant LEA determination under section 616; and (b) Whether the 
LEA voluntarily reserved funds for CEIS \3\ or was required to reserve 
funds for CEIS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under section 613(f), LEAs may voluntarily reserve not more 
than 15 percent of their IDEA subgrants, less any amount reduced 
because the LEA took the LEA MOE reduction in 34 CFR 300.205 to 
develop and implement CEIS for students in kindergarten through 
grade 12 who have not been identified as needing special education 
or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral 
support to succeed in a general education environment.
    \4\ Under section 618(d)(2)(B), if a State identifies 
significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity in an LEA 
with respect to the identification of children as children with 
disabilities, or the placement of children with disabilities in 
particular educational settings, the LEA must use the maximum amount 
(15 percent) of funds allowable for CEIS to provide comprehensive 
CEIS for children in the LEA, particularly for children in those 
groups that were significantly overidentified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must collect valid and reliable data on LEA MOE/CEIS from 
their LEAs in order to report valid and reliable data on LEA MOE/CEIS 
to the Department. In order to determine the amount by which an LEA 
reduced local, or State and local, expenditures for the education of 
children with disabilities in the reporting year pursuant to 34 CFR 
300.205, the LEA must determine: (a) The amount of local, or State and 
local, funds it expended in a prior year, as well as the amount 
expended in the reporting year; (b) What portion of the reduction of 
these expenditures, if any, taken in the reporting year is attributable 
to the LEA MOE exceptions in 34 CFR 300.204; \5\ and (c) The portion 
that is attributable to the LEA MOE adjustment provision in 34 CFR 
300.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under section 613(a)(2)(B) and 34 CFR 300.204, an LEA may 
reduce the level of expenditures for the education of children with 
disabilities below the level of those expenditures for the preceding 
fiscal year if the reduction is attributable to any of the 
following:
    (a) The voluntary departure, by retirement or otherwise, or 
departure for just cause, of special education or related services 
personnel.
    (b) A decrease in the enrollment of children with disabilities.
    (c) The termination of the obligation of the agency, consistent 
with Part B of the IDEA, to provide a program of special education 
to a particular child with a disability that is an exceptionally 
costly program, as determined by the SEA, because the child--
    (1) Has left the jurisdiction of the agency;
    (2) Has reached the age at which the obligation of the agency to 
provide FAPE to the child has terminated; or
    (3) No longer needs the program of special education.
    (d) The termination of costly expenditures for long-term 
purchases, such as the acquisition of equipment or the construction 
of school facilities.
    (e) The assumption of cost by the high cost fund operated by the 
SEA under 34 CFR 300.704(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is an example of the information needed to accurately 
report the amount by which an LEA reduced its expenditures of State and 
local funds for the education of children with disabilities pursuant to 
34 CFR 300.205. This example assumes that the LEA calculates MOE based 
on State and local funds, not just local funds, and the reporting year 
is school year (SY) 2012-2013. In this example, the LEA must make the 
following calculations in order to report accurate LEA MOE/CEIS data:
    (a) The amount of State and local funds expended for the education 
of children with disabilities in SY 2011-2012;
    (b) The amount of State and local funds expended for the education 
of children with disabilities in SY 2012-2013;
    (c) The amount of the reduction, if any, in State and local funds 
expended for the education of children with disabilities between SY 
2011-2012 and SY 2012-2013;
    (d) The amount of that reduction, if any, in SY 2012-2013 that is 
attributable to the exceptions permitted in 34 CFR 300.204; and

[[Page 24663]]

    (e) If the LEA met requirements and had an increase in its FFY 2012 
section 611 allocation, the amount of that reduction, if any, in SY 
2012-2013 that is attributable to the MOE adjustment provision in 34 
CFR 300.205.

LEA MOE/CEIS Data Quality Issues

    Based on the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) review 
of the LEA MOE/CEIS data submitted for FFYs 2009 and 2010, OSEP 
determined that a significant number of States initially reported data 
that were not valid and reliable. For example, many States initially 
reported data indicating that their LEAs: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This is a partial list identified by OSEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Decreased expenditures of non-Federal funds for the education 
of children with disabilities, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.205, even though 
they did not have a determination of meets requirements under section 
616;
    (b) Decreased expenditures of non-Federal funds for the education 
of children with disabilities, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.205, by more than 
the allowable reduction of 50 percent of the increase of their IDEA 
section 611 subgrant; and
    (c) Did not reserve 15 percent of their Part B IDEA allocation for 
comprehensive CEIS when required to do so pursuant to 34 CFR 300.646.
    In the process of providing TA to States, OSEP found that some 
States initially reported data that were not valid and reliable because 
the States did not fully understand the underlying fiscal requirements 
and the calculations necessary to meet the data collection requirements 
related to LEA MOE/CEIS.
    In addition, OSEP has identified issues related to the quality of 
LEA MOE/CEIS data through monitoring and inquiries from States and 
LEAs. In a recent audit, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) also 
raised concerns about the validity and reliability of the LEA MOE/CEIS 
data.\7\ These experiences demonstrate the continued need to provide TA 
on LEA MOE/CEIS data collection requirements in order to ensure States 
submit valid and reliable data that meet the data collection 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort Flexibility 
Due to Recovery Act IDEA, Part B Funds (ED-OIG/L09L0011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Maintenance of Financial Support (MFS) Requirement

    Pursuant to section 612(a)(18)(A) and 34 CFR 300.163(a), States 
must not reduce the total amount of State financial support made 
available for special education and related services for children with 
disabilities, or made available because of the excess costs of 
educating those children, below the amount of that support for the 
preceding fiscal year. This requirement is applicable to State 
financial support made available by a State through all of its State 
agencies, and is not limited to the support made available through the 
SEA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See OSEP Memorandum 10-5, dated December 2, 2009 (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep10-05maintenanceoffinancialsupport.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 612(a)(18)(B), the statutory consequence for a State 
that fails to maintain financial support without obtaining a waiver 
under section 612(a)(18)(C) is a reduction in the amount of the State's 
section 611 grant award in any fiscal year in an amount equal to the 
amount by which the State failed to maintain financial support.
    Beginning in FY 2013, Congress made changes to the procedure for 
allocating Part B funds to States in section 611(d) of the IDEA in 
order to limit the impact of a one-time violation of the MFS 
requirement. While these changes did reduce the long-term effects of a 
State's failure to maintain financial support, reducing State 
allocations in accordance with section 612(a)(18) could still result in 
a significant reduction in a given fiscal year, depending on the amount 
by which the State failed to meet the requirements.

Section V of the Part B Annual Application

    Section V of the Part B Annual Application requires States to 
provide the total amount of State financial support made available for 
special education and related services for children with disabilities. 
These data assist OSEP in determining whether States met the 
requirements of section 612(a)(18). For FFY 2013, States were required 
to report and certify the amount of State funds made available for 
State FYs 2011 and 2012.
    As part of its monitoring responsibilities, OSEP has conducted 
fiscal monitoring, reviewed waiver requests under section 
612(a)(18)(C), resolved Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 
A-133 audits, and reviewed States' data submitted in Section V of their 
applications. Based on these activities OSEP has concluded that many 
States need additional TA to submit valid and reliable data in Section 
V. Specifically related to State MFS, OSEP found:
    (a) Seventeen States could not demonstrate that they have 
procedures to properly calculate State MFS;
    (b) Since 2009, 8 States submitted a total of 12 State MFS waiver 
requests that required considerable clarification; \9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Each request required numerous data submissions and 
teleconferences before the Department could respond to the waiver 
request. In two instances, Department staff travelled to the SEA to 
resolve data issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Multiple States had discrepancies between the data reported in 
Section V and data obtained from other sources, including publicly 
available data, requiring OSEP to devote significant staff time and 
resources to determining whether the MFS data for those States were 
valid and reliable.
    Assisting States in reporting valid and reliable State MFS data is 
made more difficult because every State's special education funding 
structure is different and may change with State legislative action. As 
a result of these issues, OSEP believes that States need intensive, 
State-specific TA on how to collect and report valid and reliable State 
MFS data to meet the data collection requirements. OSEP believes that 
investing in the Center to assist States in collecting and reporting 
valid and reliable data is more efficient than identifying and 
correcting inaccurate data after it has been reported to the 
Department.
Proposed Priority
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate a Center to achieve, at a minimum, 
the following expected outcomes: (a) Improve the capacity of State 
staff to collect and report accurate fiscal data related to LEA MOE/
CEIS and State MFS; and (b) increase States' knowledge of the 
underlying fiscal requirements and the calculations necessary to submit 
valid and reliable data on LEA MOE/CEIS and State MFS.
    Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the 
Center at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:

Knowledge Development Activities

    (a) To ensure that States have the capacity to collect and report 
accurate LEA MOE/CEIS and State MFS fiscal data, survey all 60 IDEA 
Part B programs in the first year to:
    (1) Assess their capacity to collect and report high-quality LEA 
MOE/CEIS and State MFS fiscal data required under data collections 
authorized under section 618 and identify the policies and practices 
that facilitate or hinder the collection of accurate data consistent 
with IDEA fiscal requirements; and

[[Page 24664]]

    (2) Analyze and catalogue how States make available State financial 
support for special education and related services in order to develop 
templates that increase the capacity of States to collect and report 
accurate data;
    (b) In the first year, analyze the LEA MOE/CEIS data submissions 
and data notes to determine common data collection and submission 
errors and to identify States in need of intensive or targeted TA.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities

    (a) Provide intensive TA to a minimum of 10 SEAs per year \10\ to 
improve States' collection and submission of IDEA fiscal data 
consistent with the requirements of IDEA. Preference should be given to 
those States with the greatest need, including States with a 
demonstrated failure to accurately report MFS or LEA MOE/CEIS data, and 
States requesting TA. When working with States on LEA MOE/CEIS data, 
the TA should develop the capacity of SEAs to train LEAS to accurately 
report the required data;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The requirement of the priority is that the Center provides 
intensive TA to 10 SEAs in any given year, which may include 
continued TA for some SEAs across more than one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Provide a range of targeted and general TA products and 
services related to fiscal data to improve State capacity to collect 
and report valid and reliable data, including the dissemination of OSEP 
guidance on IDEA fiscal requirements and the development and 
dissemination of TA products on IDEA fiscal data collection and 
reporting requirements, and improve the capacity of SEAs to train LEAs 
to accurately report the required data; and
    (c) Develop templates to assist States in collecting valid and 
reliable State MFS and LEA MOE/CEIS data so those data can be 
accurately reported to OSEP. These templates should be designed to 
accommodate variances in State school financing systems (insofar as 
possible) and remind users of the applicable required components of the 
calculation.

 Coordination Activities

    (a) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States, such as the National Technical Assistance Center to 
Improve State Capacity to Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data; and
    (b) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP project officer.

Administrative Requirements

    To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must 
meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. 
OSEP encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which 
are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will address 
States' capacity to: (1) Understand IDEA's statutory and regulatory 
basis for the fiscal reporting requirements; (2) collect valid and 
reliable fiscal data; (3) conduct required calculations consistent with 
IDEA requirements; and (4) report valid and reliable fiscal data; and
    (b) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA fiscal data collections, 
including the underlying statutory and regulatory requirements, current 
fiscal guidance, and State school funding systems;
    (c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Project Services,'' how the proposed project would--
    (1) 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;
    (2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and 
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, 
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed 
relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical 
support for this framework;
    (3) Base the design of the TA on current research and make use of 
evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that would inform the proposed TA; and
    (ii) How the proposed project would incorporate current research 
and evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its 
products and services;
    (4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base for 
IDEA fiscal data collection and reporting requirements;
    (ii) How it proposes to conduct the survey of all 60 IDEA Part B 
Programs administered by SEAs;
    (iii) How it proposes to conduct universal, general TA \11\ for the 
60 SEAs that have IDEA Part B programs;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) How it proposes to provide targeted, specialized TA,\12\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA service based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) How it proposes 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 LEA level; and
    (C) Appropriate staff with the requisite responsibilities to 
receive the TA in these areas.
    (v) How it proposes to provide intensive, sustained TA,\13\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``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) How it proposes to select and recruit SEAs to work with the 
proposed project, considering the SEAs' need for the initiative, 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the LEA level;
    (B) How it proposes to assist SEAs in building training systems 
that include professional development based on adult learning 
principles and coaching; and
    (C) How it proposes to involve and work with other regional TA 
providers to assist SEAs with communication

[[Page 24665]]

between each level of the education system (e.g., districts, schools, 
families);
    (5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the 
project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) How the proposed project would use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project would collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project would use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Evaluation Plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project would collect and analyze data on specific 
and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project. 
To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its--
    (i) Proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data 
collection methods, and analyses; and
    (ii) Proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness;
    (2) The proposed project would use the evaluation results to 
examine the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes; and
    (3) The proposed methods of evaluation would produce quantitative 
and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project achieved the 
intended outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project would 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, 
including experience working with State and district fiscal systems.
    (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.
    (f) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan would 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 would ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality; and
    (4) The proposed project would obtain a diversity of perspectives, 
including those of State and local personnel, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in the development and 
operation of its plan.
    (g) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include in Appendix 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 intended 
outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative 
evaluations of the project.

    Note: The following Web sites provide more information on logic 
models: www.researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_resource3c.html and www.tadnet.org/pages/589;

    (2) Include in Appendix A 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 the costs for attending the following 
events:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
    (iii) A two-day trip annually to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during 
the last half of the second year of the project period;
    (5) Include in the budget a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with OSEP;

    Note: With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project 
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no 
later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and

    (6) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility.
Types of Priorities
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority

    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this proposed priority, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.


[[Page 24666]]


Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. 
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: April 28, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-10000 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P