Proposed Priority and Requirements-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-The Rhonda Weiss National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data in Accessible Formats, 15148-15155 [2022-05716]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15148-15155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05716]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2022-OSERS-0038]


Proposed Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--The Rhonda Weiss National Technical Assistance Center 
To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
IDEA Data in Accessible Formats

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

ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority 
and requirements for the Rhonda Weiss National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate IDEA Data in Accessible Formats (Accessible Data Center) under 
the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance 
Listing Number 84.373Q. The Department may use this priority and these 
requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and thereafter. 
We take this action to address an identified need for national 
technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data

[[Page 15149]]

collection requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Accessible Data Center would 
support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best 
analyze and use their data in formats that provide equitable access and 
visualizations to persons with disabilities, particularly those with 
blindness, visual impairments, motor impairments, and intellectual 
disabilities. The Accessible Data Center would customize its TA to meet 
each State's specific needs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 31, 2022.

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 or those submitted after the comment 
period. 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 ``Help.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and 
requirements, address them to Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5025A, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108.
    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: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5025A, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email: 
[email protected].
    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 and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final priority and requirements, 
we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed 
priority or requirement that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priority or any of the proposed requirements would be 
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed 
priority or requirements could be revised to address potential 
challenges.
    Directed Questions:
    1. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by 
parents of children with disabilities and other stakeholders with 
disabilities, particularly those with blindness, visual impairments, 
motor impairments, and intellectual disabilities, when accessing, 
exploring, or engaging with IDEA data and other educational data on 
government websites?
    2. What accessibility features and interactive elements of a data 
reporting system are necessary to allow parents of children with 
disabilities and other stakeholders with disabilities, particularly 
those with blindness, visual impairments, motor impairments, and 
intellectual disabilities, to access and use data to answer their 
essential questions?
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to reduce any 
regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priority and 
requirements. Please let us know how we could further reduce potential 
costs or increase potential benefits, while preserving effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. You also may inspect the comments in person. To 
arrange in-person inspection, please contact the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 the proposed priority and requirements. To 
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary 
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA. This section 
gives the Secretary authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 
percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year 
to provide TA activities authorized under section 616(i) of IDEA, to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and 
reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount 
the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is 
$25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. For FY 
2022, the inflation adjusted amount is $37,300,000. 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 section 616 of IDEA are collected, 
analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires 
the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of 
States to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C data collection requirements, 
which include the data collection and reporting requirements in 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, gives the Secretary 
authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to provide 
TA to States to improve their capacity to administer and carry out 
other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, 
quality, and use under Parts B and C of IDEA.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442; and 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 
Stat. 1182, 1601.
    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal 
civil rights laws.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
    Proposed Priority:
    This notice contains one proposed priority.
    The Rhonda Weiss 1 National Technical Assistance Center 
to Improve

[[Page 15150]]

State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data 
in Accessible Formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Center is named in remembrance of Rhonda Weiss, who was 
a senior attorney with the U.S. Department of Education, a staunch 
advocate for disability rights, and a champion for ensuring equity 
and accessibility for persons with disabilities. For more 
information on Rhonda and her work to ensure equity and 
accessibility for persons with disabilities please see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/13/blind-government-lawyer-disabilities-rights/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background:
    According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019 American Community 
Survey, 12.7 percent of the U.S. Population experiences disability 
(more than 1 in 8 people). Approximately 2.3 percent, or over 7.4 
million, U.S. citizens have a visual disability and 5.2 percent, or 
close to 16 million U.S. citizens have a cognitive disability. 
Disability impacts people of all ages, races, ethnicities, geographies, 
and socio-economic groups.
    The purpose of the Accessible Data Center is to improve State 
capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use the IDEA Part 
B and Part C data reported under IDEA sections 616 and 618 in 
accessible formats for persons with disabilities, particularly those 
with blindness, visual impairments, motor impairments, and intellectual 
disabilities.
    Under the authority of IDEA sections 616 and 618, States are 
required to collect and analyze data on infants, toddlers, and children 
with disabilities and report on the data to the Department and the 
public. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
(Rehabilitation Act), requires States to publish data in a manner that 
provides the same access and usability to persons with and without 
disabilities. Currently, States struggle to report data in accessible 
formats that also are dynamic and usable by data consumers with limited 
statistical knowledge. To meet the demands of both statutes, States 
generally rely on static data portrayals rather than dynamic 
visualizations. The lack of available software to develop accessible, 
dynamic and manipulatable data products creates inequitable access for 
persons with disabilities, particularly those with blindness, visual 
impairments, motor impairments, and intellectual disabilities.
    The Accessible Data Center would increase the capacity of States to 
collect, report, analyze, and use the IDEA Part B and Part C data 
reported under IDEA sections 616 and 618 in accessible formats in two 
ways: (1) By developing an openly licensed software program that allows 
States to report and publish data products that are accessible, usable, 
and manipulatable by persons with disabilities, particularly those with 
blindness, visual impairments, motor impairments, and intellectual 
disabilities, as well as by those persons without disabilities, and (2) 
by providing TA on accessible data reporting and publication. By 
developing an accessible and usable data reporting platform and 
supporting States as they revise their data collection tools and 
publish accessible data, both internal and external users will be 
better positioned to analyze and use the data. Hazen et al. (2017) note 
that both data analysis and data use by both internal and external 
users can be integrated into the data quality process and used as a 
tool for improving data quality. By increasing the capacity of States 
to report their data in formats that are both accessible and useable, 
this Center will aid in the improvement of data quality across the 
States and ensure equitable access to IDEA data for all stakeholders.
    Federal agencies have increasingly used open licensing to expand 
the impact and reach of materials developed with Federal funds, enable 
innovative use of those materials, and ensure that those materials and 
resources are available to the public (U.S Department of State, 2017). 
Open licensing gives permission to the public to use materials created 
under the terms of the license and attribute to the creator under 
copyright law. Pfenninger et al. (2017) noted that the benefit of open 
licensing allows for the burden of the work to be shared and used more 
broadly, avoids unnecessary duplication, supports learning to solutions 
more quickly, and supports learning from one another to get to 
solutions more quickly, and allows for research to be seen and used. 
Additionally, open licensing helps to improve educational research 
opportunities and systems, given the rapid pace of technological change 
and ongoing advances.
    Data visualizations can be difficult to access for persons with 
disabilities. This difficulty is not limited to persons who are blind 
and/or visually impaired, but also impacts those with cognitive and 
learning disabilities, and those with visual or motor disabilities who 
do not access their computers with a mouse or touchscreen. These 
barriers have been amplified by the growing interest in, and use of, 
infographics and interactive data displays and dashboards on websites 
and in social media. In addition to difficulty with use, persons with 
disabilities are often excluded as potential authors and designers of 
data visualizations due to the inaccessibility of the computer-based 
tools used to create and publish data displays. Despite legislation, 
including sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title III 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, potential data authors and 
consumers with disabilities continue to be excluded from the data 
sharing necessary for equal access and participation in civic 
conversations, education, advocacy, and employment.
    To extend the benefits and opportunities of data visualization 
equitably and inclusively to all people, new tools must be developed 
that prioritize access and usability for everyone. Developers and 
designers should engage with people with disabilities (including 
developers and designers with disabilities) to identify and integrate 
accessibility solutions. Accessibly designed software and data 
visualizations will increase access for those who have traditionally 
been excluded and increase opportunities for all consumers and authors 
to interact with data in new and preferred ways. Following the 
principles of universal design, everyone benefits when we expand the 
ability of people with disabilities to use and access information, 
products, programs, and spaces with greater convenience and enjoyment.
    In addition to equitable access and data availability, data 
reporters face a growing problem of how to meaningfully publish large 
datasets. Consumers need easy tools for conducting simple analyses, 
comparing variables, and searching for data-based answers to unique and 
changing questions. Interactive data visualizations increase confidence 
in data reliability and provide stakeholders with opportunities to look 
at data in new ways.
    Modern, web-based data visualizations include the ability to 
select, link, filter, and reorganize data, as well as the delivery of 
3-D/multidimensional data representations that can be accessed from 
multiple perspectives (Cota et al., 2017). Challenges to producing 
interactive data visualizations include managing visual noise, fitting 
large amounts of data onto limited screen sizes, and satisfying the 
high-performance computation requirements behind dynamic visualizations 
(Hajirahimova & Ismayilova, 2018). Innovative data interactivity and 
manipulation solutions can also solve accessibility challenges. 
Accessibility solutions for static images (which usually involve 
written descriptions embedded in alt-tags in computer code) should 
become standard practice, while simultaneously being

[[Page 15151]]

reimagined to accommodate responsive and animated representations of 
data.
    Proposed Priority:
    Under this proposed priority, the Department provides funding for a 
cooperative agreement to establish and operate the Rhonda Weiss 
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data in Accessible 
Formats (Accessible Data Center).
    The Accessible Data Center will provide TA to help States better 
meet current and future IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and 
reporting requirements, improve data quality, and analyze and use the 
data reported so that they are in accessible formats. The Accessible 
Data Center's work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality 
protections in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 
and IDEA and will not provide the Department with access to child-level 
data. The Accessible Data Center must achieve at a minimum, the 
following expected outcomes:
    (a) Improved accessibility of the IDEA Part B and Part C data 
reported and published under IDEA sections 616 and 618;
    (b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C data in accessible formats;
    (c) Development of an open license, accessible software program, 
for the publication of dynamic data products (consistent with the open 
licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20); and
    (d) Development and documentation of a knowledge base related to 
the accessible reporting and dynamic presentation of data.
    In addition, the Accessible Data Center must provide a range of 
targeted and general TA products and services for improving States' 
capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 
616 and section 618 data in accessible formats for persons with 
disabilities, particularly those with blindness, visual impairments, 
motor impairments, and intellectual disabilities. Such TA must include, 
at a minimum--
    (a) Working with the Department to develop open-source electronic 
tools to assist States in reporting their IDEA data in accessible 
formats that allow for dynamic visualizations that can be manipulated 
for persons with and without disabilities. The tools must utilize 
accessibility best practices, exceed all Federal accessibility 
requirements, and be designed to accommodate continued enhancements to 
meet States' changing needs and updates in accessibility best practice;
    (b) Developing a plan to maintain appropriate functionality of the 
open-source electronic tools described in paragraph (a) as changes are 
made to data collections, reporting requirements, accessibility best 
practices, and accessibility requirements;
    (c) Developing universal TA products, including a user manual and 
instructions, and conducting training with State staff on use of the 
open-source electronic tools; and
    (d) Developing white papers and presentations that include tools 
and solutions to challenges in the collection, reporting, analysis, and 
use of IDEA data in accessible formats.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, reporting, 
and using the IDEA Part B and Part C data reported under IDEA sections 
616 and 618 in formats that are both accessible to persons with visual 
impairments and/or other disabilities, and also dynamic, to promote 
enhanced data use that will improve data quality and identify 
programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. To meet this 
requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data 
required under IDEA sections 616 and 618;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of accessible reporting and dynamic 
visualization, and document areas for further knowledge development;
    (iii) Present information about the difficulties State educational 
agencies (SEAs), State lead agencies (LAs), local educational agencies 
(LEAs), early intervention service (EIS) providers, and schools have 
encountered in meeting the requirements of section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act when reporting IDEA data;
    (iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, State LAs, 
LEAs, EIS providers, and schools have in developing dynamic data 
visualizations for public use; and
    (2) Improve outcomes in collecting, analyzing, reporting, and using 
the IDEA Part B and Part C data in formats that are accessible to 
persons with visual impairments and/or other disabilities.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients and end users for 
TA and information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended TA recipients and end users;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model \2\ by which the proposed 
project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, 
the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed 
project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Logic model (34 CFR 77.1) (also referred to as a theory of 
action) means a framework that identifies key project components of 
the proposed project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are 
hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and 
describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the 
key project components and relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research and use evidence-based practices 
(EBPs).\3\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of these requirements,``evidence-based 
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings 
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention 
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs, State LAs, LEAs, 
and EIS providers to report and use data, specifically section 616 and 
section 618

[[Page 15152]]

data in a manner that allows persons with vision and/or other 
disabilities, as well as those without, to access and dynamically 
manipulate data, as both a means of improving data quality and 
identifying strengths and areas for improvement;
    (ii) How it will analyze and incorporate the views of end users 
regarding the accessibility of tools currently available for data 
collection, reporting, analysis, and use. Specifically, how it will 
assess the overall accessibility, data manipulability, and the 
accessibility of dynamic data visualizations for persons with and 
without disabilities; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research, 
EBPs, and the needs of end users in the development and delivery of its 
products and services;
    (5) How it will 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 
the capacity needs of SEAs, State LAs, LEAs, and EIS programs to meet 
IDEA data collection and reporting requirements, data analysis, and use 
of the IDEA Part B and Part C data reported under IDEA sections 616 and 
618 in a manner that allows individuals with vision and/or other 
disabilities, as well as those without, to access and dynamically 
manipulate data;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\4\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with Accessible Data Center staff and including 
one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by Accessible 
Data Center staff. This category of TA also includes information or 
products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, 
downloaded from the Accessible Data Center's website by independent 
users. Brief communications by Accessible Data Center staff with 
recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered 
universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\5\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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 Accessible Data 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, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive 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,\6\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between 
Accessible Data 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, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA, State 
LAs, LEA, and EIS program/provider 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, State LA, LEA, and EIS 
program/provider levels;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and State LAs (and LEAs, 
in conjunction with SEAs and EIS programs/providers, in conjunction 
with State LAs) to build or enhance training systems to meet IDEA Part 
B and Part C data collection and reporting requirements in a manner 
that allows individuals with vision and/or other disabilities, as well 
as those without, to access and dynamically manipulate data. This 
includes professional development based on adult learning principles 
and coaching;
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, State LAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, 
EIS providers, schools, and families) to ensure there is communication 
between each level and there are systems in place to support the 
capacity needs of SEAs, State LAs, LEAs, and EIS providers to meet IDEA 
data collection and reporting requirements, as well as support data 
analysis, and the use of IDEA Part B and Part C data in a manner that 
allows individuals with vision and/or other disabilities, as well as 
those without, to access and dynamically manipulate data; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States, where appropriate, to align complementary work and 
jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the 
purposes of this priority. Such Department-funded projects include the 
IDEA Data Center (IDC), the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data 
Systems (DaSy), the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting (CIFR), the Center 
for the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID), EdFacts, and the research and 
development investments of the Institute of Education Sciences/National 
Center for Education Statistics; and
    (6) Its proposed plan to 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 project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\7\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, or have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of

[[Page 15153]]

this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the 
course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model and 
evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance 
report and at the end of Year 2 for the review process; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of 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, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one- and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or 
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting 
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and 
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two- and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period; 
and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend 
Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other 
meetings, as requested by OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 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, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. 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;
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility; and
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
    References:

Cota, M.P., Rodr[iacute]guez, M.D., Gonz[aacute]lez-Castro, M.R. & 
Gon[ccedil]alves, R.M.M. (2017). Analysis of current visualization 
techniques and main challenges for the future. Journal of 
Information Systems Engineering & Management, 2(3), 19. https://doi.org/10.20897/jisem.201719.
Hajirahimova, M.S., & Ismayilova, M.I. (2018). Big data 
visualization: Existing approaches and problems. Problems of 
Information Technology, 1, 65-74.
Hazen, B.T., Weigel, F.K., Ezell, J.D., Boehmke, B.C., & Bradley, 
R.V. (2017). Toward understanding outcomes associated with data 
quality improvement. International Journal of Production Economics, 
193, 737-747.
Pfenninger, S., DeCarolis, J., Hirth, L. Quoilin, S., & Staffell, I. 
(2017). The importance of open data and software: Is energy research 
lagging behind? Energy Policy, 101, 211-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.046.
U.S. Department of State. (2017). Federal Open Licensing Playbook. 
https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/open_licensing_playbook_final.pdf.

    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 and Requirements

    We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and 
requirements after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities or requirements 
subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this proposed priority and one or more of these 
requirements, we

[[Page 15154]]

invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
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.
    OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We also have 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 the proposed 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. In summary, 
the potential costs associated with this priority would be minimal, 
while the potential benefits are significant. The Department believes 
that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on 
eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the 
costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action will be limited 
to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential 
benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred 
by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with 
the application will be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, 
we have determined that the costs of implementation will not be 
excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including small 
entities.
    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.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priority contains information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the 
proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data 
collection.

Clarity of the Regulatory Actions

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulatory actions 
clearly stated?
     Do the proposed regulatory actions contain technical terms 
or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulatory actions 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) 
aid or reduce their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulatory actions be easier to 
understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed regulatory actions 
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more 
helpful in making the proposed regulatory actions easier to understand? 
If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulatory 
actions easier to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make these 
proposed regulatory actions easier to understand, see the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define ``small 
entities'' as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual 
revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by 
small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or

[[Page 15155]]

special districts), with a population of less than 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under 
State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; 
private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying 
areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the 
proposed priority would be limited to paperwork burden related to 
preparing an application and that the benefits of the proposed priority 
would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority would 
impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding 
under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an 
eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an 
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the 
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity probably would 
apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs 
of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priority would not impose any 
additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the 
entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the 
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence 
of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an 
application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.
    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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or 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.

Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, delegated the authority to perform the 
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-05716 Filed 3-15-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P