Rule2024-15051
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 9, 2024
Effective
August 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (Data Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Department may use this priority and one or more of these requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data and will customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56217-56222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15051]
[[Page 56217]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0011]
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Technical
Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report,
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part
B Data (Data Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program. The Department may use this priority and one or
more of these requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024
and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an
identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements
under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
This Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and
determining how to best analyze and use their data and will customize
its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
DATES: The priority and requirements are effective August 8, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 245-6391. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9eccf7fdf6fbf2f2fbb0daffe8f7eddefbfab0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89dbe0eae1ece5e5eca7cde8ffe0fac9eceda7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the
Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide
TA activities, where needed, 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. 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 data collection
requirements, which include the data collection and reporting
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the
Secretary may use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to
``administer and carry out other services and activities to improve
data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of
the IDEA.'' Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law
118-47, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.373Y.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d),
1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47,
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP)
for this program in the Federal Register on March 4, 2024 (89 FR
15525). That document contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the priority and requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, nine
parties submitted comments addressing the priority and requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed
priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of
the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics,
including funding and topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.
Comments: Multiple commenters specifically expressed support for
the proposed center and the proposed objectives.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide
necessary and valuable TA under the IDEA to States.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed a shift towards a more
participatory approach to data collection under the IDEA, an approach
that would consider the voices and experiences of diverse stakeholders.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion
and shares their interest in obtaining broad and diverse input
regarding the IDEA data collection process. Ultimately, the Department
is required to collect these data under section 618 of IDEA. Thus, the
participatory data collection methods that the commenter suggested,
such as community forums, focus groups, and surveys designed to capture
the perspectives and needs of diverse stakeholders, may be helpful as
State educational agencies (SEAs) implement their IDEA data collection
responsibilities, but are not applicable at this time when the
Department's data collection is defined by the IDEA statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: In response to the Department's request for comment on
whether it should utilize a phased-in approach for funding this Center,
such that the award amount for the initial years of the project would
be lower than the later years, the majority of commenters expressed
concerns. Commenters specifically noted concerns about the funding
level given the turnover and shortages on data staff faced by SEAs and
need for the TA the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) data
centers provide to new data staff, as well as the impact decreased TA
would have on data quality.
Discussion: The Department agrees that SEAs are facing significant
issues related to shortages and turnover of their data staff. The
Department also agrees that a substantial decrease in funding for TA
could impact data quality. For this reason, the Department intends to
limit any phased-in funding, with smaller awards in the initial years
of the project and higher awards in later years (to the extent
appropriations under IDEA by Congress permit this flexibility) and
still maintain the proposed outcomes and activities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended including specific reference to
artificial intelligence (AI) within the administrative requirements,
[[Page 56218]]
as it is an increasingly important technology in this field.
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenter's interest in, and
support of, AI for the data collection, reporting, and use of IDEA
section 618 data, the Department will consider whether and how AI
should be incorporated into the TA on data collection when the
Department develops the cooperative agreement and during the
implementation of the grant.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed adding specific outcomes that
support data integration efforts across State agencies and federally
funded pre-kindergarten through age 21 education programs that would
improve States' capacity to use data for programming decisions.
Discussion: The Department appreciates and agrees with the need to
support and increase data integration across State agencies. The
Department funds the Center on the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID) to
specifically support States on how to integrate and better use their
Federal data, with a specific focus on the IDEA data (ALN 84.373M).
Under the requirements within the priority, applicants must describe
how they would collaborate and coordinate with other Department-funded
TA investments, such as CIID, to align their work to better meet the
purposes of the Center. In order to decrease confusion in the field and
the potential overlap of this TA center and CIID, the Department
declines to add an additional outcome related to State-level data
integration.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to
Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate
IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).
The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current
and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements,
improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and
other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and
address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
The Data Center will provide TA to help States to (1) effectively
and efficiently respond to all IDEA-related data submission
requirements; (2) improve the analyses of IDEA data to the extent these
analyses respond to critical policy questions that will facilitate
program improvement and compliance accountability; and (3) comply with
applicable privacy requirements, including the privacy and
confidentiality requirements under IDEA and the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR
part 99.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Center must review the need for additional resources
(with input from the Department) and disseminate existing resources
developed by the Department, such as: (1) IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk
(Surprenant & Miller, August 24, 2022); and (2) Data sharing
agreement template (at <a href="https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-mou-template/">https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-mou-template/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Data Center will focus on providing TA on collecting,
reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data on children with
disabilities ages 3 through 21 required under sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA. However, the Data Center will not provide TA on Part B data
required under section 616 of IDEA for Indicators B7 (Preschool
Outcomes) and B12 (Early Childhood Transition); TA on collecting,
reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data associated with children
with disabilities ages 3 through 5 for these indicators will be
provided by the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early
Childhood Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and
promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among
relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs),
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality
of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely
data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent
future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
(c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing
personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training
modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes),
and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State
collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that
States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and
districts;
(d) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs in collaboration with SEAs,
to collect, report, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to
identify programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root
causes of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress
towards outcomes;
(e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate
tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to
communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents and
families, school boards, the general public); and
(f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B data.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This 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 priority and these requirements, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Requirements
Applicants must--
[[Page 56219]]
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their
capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as both a
means of improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths
and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems,
as appropriate;
(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and
(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
(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 for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(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 (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes, which
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(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: <a href="https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf">https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf</a> and
<a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework">www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework</a>.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based
practices (EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 and LEAs to report
and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as both a
means of improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for
improvement; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on
the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection
and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections
616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``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 website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\4\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, 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,\5\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, 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 personnel
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative,
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA
levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data
quality issues, as measured by the Office of Special Education
Programs' (OSEP's) review of the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and
618 data;
(D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems related to the IDEA
Part B data collection and reporting requirements that include
professional development based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA
[[Page 56220]]
providers, LEAs, schools, and families) to ensure that there is
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to
support the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet Part B data
collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of the
IDEA; and
(F) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded TA investments (e.g., the Center funded under
84.373Z, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center for the
Integration of IDEA Data, the Data Center to Address Significant
Disproportionality, and the Weiss Center) and Institute of Education
Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research and
development investments, where appropriate, in order to align
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and
services to meet the purposes of this priority; and
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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, nor 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 application and
administrative 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 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 and quality of project personnel,'' 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 to the project and how these allocations are
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, easily accessible, 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,
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; and
(iii) Three annual two-day trips 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) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or
industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
(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; and
[[Page 56221]]
(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing
targeted and intensive TA to States.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 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, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product);
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments
or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify the costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these 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.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this
program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements
on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects
that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets
a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing
requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these
requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
The Department believes that the benefits to the Federal Government
outweigh the costs associated with this action.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority and requirements are
needed to administer the program effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority, including requirements, contains information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1820-0028; the final priority, including requirements, does not
affect the currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will 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 this final priority,
including requirements, will be limited to paperwork burden related to
preparing an application and that the benefits of this final priority
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and
requirements 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 will 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 will most
likely apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the
costs of preparing an application.
[[Page 56222]]
We believe that the final priority and requirements will 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 this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application will likely be the same.
This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
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 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, 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 <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other Department documents published in the
Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access Department documents published in the Federal
Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-15051 Filed 7-5-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 9, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.