Final Priority and Requirements-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-IDEA Data Management Center, 41379-41387 [2020-14073]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
job market analysis, by establishing
partnerships and relationships with
LEAs that serve a high proportion of
Indian students and developing
programs that meet their employment
needs.
(d) * * *
(5) The extent to which the applicant
will assist participants in meeting the
service obligation requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Amend newly redesignated
§ 263.8 by revising paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
§ 263.8 What are the requirements for a
leave of absence?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The project director may approve
a leave of absence, for a period not
longer than 12 months, provided the
participant has completed a minimum
of 50 percent of the training in the
project and is in good standing at the
time of request.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Amend newly redesignated
§ 263.9 by:
■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the
word ‘‘people’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘students’’ and removing the
words ‘‘school that has a significant
Indian population’’ and adding, in their
place, the words ‘‘LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students’’; and
■ b. Adding a note at the end of this
section.
The addition reads as follows:
§ 263.9 What are the payback
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
Note to § 263.9: For grants that
provide administrator training, a
participant who has received
administrator training and subsequently
works for a Tribal educational agency
that provides administrative control or
direction of public schools (e.g., BIEfunded schools or charter schools)
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
§ 263.11
[Amended]
12. Amend newly redesignated
§ 263.11 by removing the word ‘‘people’’
in paragraph (b)(1) and adding, in its
place, the phrase ‘‘students in an LEA
that serves a high proportion of Indian
students’’.
■ 13. Amend newly redesignated
§ 263.12 by:
■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the
end of paragraph (c)(1)(ii);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
as paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and adding a new
paragraph (c)(1)(iii);
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
c. Removing in paragraph (c)(2) the
word ‘‘seven’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘thirty’’; and
■ d. Revising the authority citation.
The addition and revision read as
follows:
■
§ 263.12 What are the grantee post-award
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) A statement explaining that work
must be in an ‘‘LEA that serves a high
proportion of Indian students,’’ and the
regulatory definition of that phrase; and
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, 25 U.S.C. 5304,
5307)
[FR Doc. 2020–13426 Filed 7–9–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED–2019–OSERS–0025; Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
Number: 84.373M.]
Final Priority and Requirements—
Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection—IDEA Data Management
Center
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS),
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) announces a priority and
requirements under the Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection
Program. The Department may use this
priority and these requirements for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2020
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
of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA Data
Management Center (Data Management
Center) will assist States in collecting,
reporting, and determining how to best
analyze and use their data to establish
and meet high expectations for each
child with a disability by enhancing,
streamlining, and integrating their IDEA
Part B data into their State longitudinal
data systems and will customize its TA
to meet each State’s specific needs.
DATES: This priority and these
requirements are effective August 10,
2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Bae, U.S. Department of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41379
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–5076.
Telephone: (202) 245–8272. Email:
Amy.Bae@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program is to improve the
capacity of States to meet IDEA data
collection and reporting requirements.
Funding for the program is authorized
under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which
gives the Secretary the 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), 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 (from funds reserved under section
611(c)), 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. Additionally, the Department of
Defense and Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations
Act, 2019 and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2019; and the
Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2020 give the Secretary authority to
use funds reserved under section 611(c)
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.’’
Department of Defense and Labor,
Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019;
Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115–245;
132 Stat. 3100 (2018). Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020;
Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116–94;
133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c),
1416(i), 1418(c), 1442; the Department
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
41380
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of Defense and Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act, 2019 and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019,
Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115–245,
132 Stat. 3100 (2018); and Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020,
Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116–94,
133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
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
November 13, 2019 (84 FR 61585). The
NPP contained background information
and our reasons for proposing the
particular priority and requirements.
There are differences between the
NPP and this notice of final priority and
requirements (NFP) as discussed in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes
section of this document. The only
substantive changes provide examples
of potential stakeholders.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation to comment in the NPP, 18
parties submitted comments on the
proposed priority and requirements.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments
that raised concerns not directly related
to the proposed priority and
requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and
changes in the priority and
requirements since publication of the
NPP follows. OSERS received comments
on several specific topics, including
whether the establishment of two
centers (i.e., one center addressing the
needs of Developed Capacity States, and
another center addressing the needs of
Developing Capacity States) would be
an efficient and effective approach to
meeting the diverse needs of States in
integrating, reporting, analyzing, and
using high-quality IDEA Part B data.
Each topic is addressed below.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
General Comments
Comments: All commenters expressed
overall support for the proposed Data
Management Center, and a number of
commenters noted the positive impact
of the valuable TA they received from
centers previously funded under this
program.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comments and agrees
with the commenters. Centers funded
under this program provide necessary
and valuable TA to the States.
Changes: None.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
Providing TA to Developing and
Developed Capacity States
Comments: In response to our
directed question about whether to
establish two centers, the majority of the
commenters did not support
establishing two data management
centers (i.e., one center addressing the
needs of Developed Capacity States, and
another center addressing the needs of
Developing Capacity States). These
commenters noted that creating two
data management centers would (1)
generate unnecessary redundancies and
result in inefficient use of Federal TA
resources; (2) make it difficult for States
to learn valuable lessons regarding the
integration of IDEA data into State
longitudinal data systems from their
colleagues; and (3) create confusion
regarding the scope of the centers and
which States would be served by which
of the two data management centers.
The commenters noted that one data
management center would be able to
support both the Developed Capacity
States and Developing Capacity States
through systematic planning.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that establishing two data management
centers would generate unnecessary
redundancies, be an inefficient use of
resources, make it difficult for States to
learn from each other, and create
confusion over the individual scopes of
the centers and which States would be
served by which of the two data
management centers. Therefore, we
have not incorporated the two-center
structure into the final priority and
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was
supportive of establishing two data
management centers and suggested that
one center focus on the technical
capacity of States to collect, access, and
appropriately share high-quality, timely
data and the other center focus on the
human capacity to more effectively
analyze, access, and apply data in
efforts to improve policy, programs,
placement, and instructional practice.
Discussion: The Department believes
that building a State’s technical capacity
and human capacity to integrate IDEA
data into State longitudinal data systems
are both necessary components to
achieving the outcomes of this priority.
However, we believe that the TA on
these components needs to be provided
in a coordinated fashion that allows
data governance principles to guide the
data integration work. We have
concluded that separating the TA
provided on these components between
two centers would result in a disjointed
and fragmented approach to data
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
integration and a less efficient and
effective manner to achieving the
outcomes of this priority. Therefore, we
have not incorporated the two-center
structure into the final priority and
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter was
supportive of establishing two data
management centers and argued that the
Department should provide examples of
the types of TA that each of the data
management centers would provide in
order to delineate the distinct roles and
responsibilities of each center and help
States identify their needs and capacity
in this area.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comment; however, we
have concluded that establishing two
data management centers to meet the
needs of States in integrating, reporting,
analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA
Part B data would result in overlapping
scopes, redundancy of TA products and
services, and an inability for States to
learn from their colleagues in the areas
of data management and integration.
The Department believes that one data
management center will be an efficient
and effective approach to meeting the
needs of Developing Capacity States and
Developed Capacity States.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted
that States cannot easily be categorized
into Developed or Developing Capacity
States. They argued that data
management and integration activities
exist on a dynamic and ever-changing
continuum and that States may have
some of their IDEA data linked or
integrated into the State longitudinal
data system while other IDEA data are
not linked or integrated. Additionally,
they argued States may move back and
forth between these two groups as
situations and support for data
management and integration work
within States changes over time.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that data management and integration
activities exist on a continuum;
however, we believe it is important to
focus intensive, sustained TA on
Developing Capacity States. We
recognize that a State’s status as a
Developing Capacity State may change,
and that the intensive, sustained TA
will shift along with a State’s status,
including whether that status is based
on a portion of a State’s data linkages.
We continue to believe that the Data
Management Center should prioritize
those States that present as Developing
Capacity States.
Changes: None.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Expanding the Types and Roles of
Stakeholders
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Including IDEA Part C Early
Intervention and Part B Preschool
Special Education Data
Comments: A number of commenters
supported including IDEA Part C early
intervention and Part B preschool
special education data in the scope of
the Data Management Center. These
commenters noted that States are
currently using these data to enhance
their ability to answer critical questions
that help evaluate and improve early
childhood programs and services.
Additionally, they discussed the value
of linking data across sources both
vertically (birth to 21 years and beyond)
as well as horizontally (across programs
such as IDEA, Head Start, prekindergarten (pre-k), child care, child
welfare, health, Title I, etc.) to provide
powerful information about the value of
these programs as they work to improve
outcomes for children and families.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that the Data Management Center
should support building State capacity
to integrate IDEA Part B data, including
the Part B preschool special education
data, as required under sections 616 and
618 of IDEA, within their longitudinal
data systems. All references to IDEA
Part B data throughout the priority are
inclusive of the Part B preschool special
education data.
Additionally, the Department agrees
with the value of linking IDEA Part C
early intervention data vertically and
horizontally to data and data systems
used to support other early childhood
and school age programs (e.g., IDEA,
Head Start, pre-k, child care, child
welfare, health, Title I). Such linkages
must appropriately address the
applicable privacy and confidentiality
requirements under IDEA Part C, Head
Start, and the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA).
The Department currently funds the
Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data
Systems (CFDA number 84.373Z). That
center focuses on early childhood data
issues, including the unique privacy
and confidentiality requirements
applicable to IDEA Part C, which are not
the focus of this center. By contrast, the
preschool special education data are
subject to the same requirements as the
school-aged special education data
under both IDEA Part B and FERPA.
Therefore, the Department believes
that including the IDEA Part C early
intervention data in this priority would
create unnecessary overlap in the scope
of the two centers and potential
duplication of TA products and
services, specifically as it relates to
issues of privacy and confidentiality.
Changes: None.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
Comments: A few commenters
recommended specifying the following
stakeholders in outcome (b): Parents,
advocates, policymakers, school
personnel, local and State school
boards, researchers, charter school
authorizers, and Indian Tribes and
Tribal organizations.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that broad stakeholder involvement is
very important to the success of a
center. We are revising the priority to
include examples of potential
stakeholders for States to consider when
developing products to report their
special education data.
Changes: We have revised outcome
(b) to include the following examples of
stakeholders: Policymakers, school
personnel, local and State school
boards, local educational agency (LEA)
administrators, researchers, charter
school authorizers, parents and
advocates, and Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations.
Comments: A few commenters
requested that we require the Data
Management Center to establish an
advisory group comprised primarily of
State data managers who can help
determine needs and focus priorities of
the Data Management Center.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comment; however, we
do not believe an advisory board is
necessary and anticipate that the Data
Management Center will engage
established data groups, made up, for
example, of State data managers, to
determine the needs and focus priorities
of the Data Management Center. Further,
this center will be required to support
a user group of States that are using an
open source electronic tool for reporting
IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as noted
in paragraph (g) of the TA requirements.
We anticipate that this user group will
provide additional feedback and
direction on the functionality of the
center’s open source electronic tool.
Changes: None.
TA Needs of States
Comments: Some commenters argued
that we should require the Data
Management Center to offer differing
levels of expertise and services based on
the various needs of the States.
Discussion: The Department agrees.
The Data Management Center will
provide three levels of TA associated
with improving States’ capacity to
report high-quality IDEA Part B data
required under sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA through their State longitudinal
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41381
data systems: (1) Intensive, sustained
TA; (2) targeted, specialized TA; and (3)
universal, general TA. Because this
requirement is already incorporated into
requirement (b)(5)(iii)(C), no changes are
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
requested that we clarify how the TA
needs of States are identified and the
center will meet the needs of charter
schools that are public schools within
an LEA and charter schools that operate
as their own LEA.
Discussion: Applicants under this
priority will be required to describe how
they will identify the TA needs of
States. This priority does not require a
specific approach to identifying the
State TA needs. However, the
Department agrees that charter schools
should be identified as a stakeholder
group when the center is identifying
outputs (e.g., reports, Application
Programming Interface, new
innovations) of an open source
electronic tool.
Changes: We have revised TA
requirement (e) pertaining to targeted
and general TA products and services to
include charter schools as an example of
stakeholders States should consider
when identifying outputs generated by
the Data Management Center’s open
source electronic tool.
Comments: A few commenters
requested that we incorporate additional
requirements into the ‘‘Significance’’
section. Generally, these commenters
suggested that applicants present
information about best practice
strategies on data integration that result
in reduced administrative burdens for
multiple users and increase the
potential relevant IDEA Part B and
longitudinal data for use outside of
IDEA oversight.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comment; however, we
believe these requirements are outside
the scope of this Data Management
Center, though the center will support
States in their efforts to implement data
integration strategies to meet the needs
of their stakeholder groups, which we
have further identified as a way to better
address the data use needs of schools.
Changes: As discussed above, we
have revised outcome (b) to include the
following examples of stakeholders:
Policymakers, school personnel, local
and State school boards, LEA
administrators, researchers, charter
school authorizers, parents and
advocates, and Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations.
Comments: One commenter requested
that we clarify that the TA provided by
the center will meet the needs of any
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
41382
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
applying entity regardless of size,
including Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations.
Discussion: 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,
which apply to all of the entities that
receive an IDEA Part B grant (i.e., the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each of
the outlying areas and the freely
associated States, and the Bureau of
Indian Education). While the Data
Management Center would not directly
provide intensive, targeted, and
universal TA to entities other than those
that receive IDEA Part B grants, it would
support those grantees’ reporting of
IDEA Part B data to different
stakeholder groups including LEAs,
charter schools, and Indian Tribes and
Tribal organizations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the references to Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), in
outcome (e) be revised to ‘‘all titles’’ of
ESEA.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the concern but did not
intend the list of examples provided in
outcome (e) to be exhaustive. The Data
Management Center will support States
in their efforts to identify the Federal
programs to analyze.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter requested
that we revise requirement (1) under
‘‘Quality of project services’’ to
prioritize the treatment for members of
groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color,
national origin, gender, age, or
disability, rather than ensure their equal
access and treatment.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comment. Requirement
(1) under ‘‘Quality of project services’’
mirrors the language in the related
selection criteria in the Education
Department General Administrative
Regulations (34 CFR 75.210). Under this
requirement, applicants must
demonstrate how the proposed project
will ensure equal access and treatment
for members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented
based on race, color, national origin,
gender, age, or disability. We believe
that the proposed requirement
adequately addresses our interest in
ensuring that project services are
designed to ensure equal access to
traditionally underrepresented groups.
Changes: None.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
Intended Outcomes of Integrated State
Longitudinal Data Systems
Comments: A commenter requested
the Department clarify that the end
result of an integrated State longitudinal
data system should be to inform State
and district decision-making in regard
to targeting needed resources to protect
civil rights and to improving the
outcomes of students with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that States should use their State
longitudinal data systems to analyze
high-quality data on the participation
and outcomes of children with
disabilities across various Federal
programs in order to improve IDEA
programs and the outcomes of children
with disabilities. We believe outcome
(e) addresses the requested clarification.
Outcome (e) states, ‘‘The Data
Management Center must be designed to
achieve, at a minimum . . . [i]ncreased
capacity of States to use their State
longitudinal data systems to analyze
high-quality data on the participation
and outcomes of children with
disabilities across various Federal
programs (e.g., IDEA, Title I of the
ESEA) in order to improve IDEA
programs and the outcomes of children
with disabilities.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter requested
that the Department add language that
States must work to ensure they utilize
charter school and traditional public
school data to protect civil rights and
improve the outcomes of students with
disabilities.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comment; however, we
believe specifying how States utilize
data in their analyses is beyond the
scope of this priority. The Data
Management Center will support States
in their efforts to integrate their IDEA
Part B data required under sections 616
and 618 of IDEA within their
longitudinal data systems and use their
State longitudinal data systems to
analyze high-quality data on the
participation and outcomes of children
with disabilities across various Federal
programs.
Changes: None.
Data Collection Under IDEA
Comments: A commenter
recommended that State IDEA data
collections capture the following data
elements:
• Whether the student has a speech or
language disorder;
• If the student is receiving IDEA
services, the disability category and
whether it is the primary or secondary
impairment;
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• If the student is receiving services
under section 504, the disability
category and whether it is the primary
or secondary impairment;
• Whether the student is receiving
hearing or speech and language services;
and
• If the student has hearing loss,
whether it is in one or both ears; the
degree of hearing loss in each ear; and
the type of hearing instruments used in
the classroom setting.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comment; however, this
priority does not address the data
collection and reporting requirements
for States under IDEA. The EDFacts
information collection package (OMB
control number 1850–0925), which
would more appropriately address these
issues, was published in the Federal
Register on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13913).
It addressed the IDEA Section 618 Part
B data collection requirements and was
open for public comment from April 8,
2019, to May 8, 2019.
Changes: None.
Final Priority:
IDEA Data Management Center.
The purpose of this priority is to fund
a cooperative agreement to establish and
operate an IDEA Data Management
Center (Data Management Center). The
Data Management Center will respond
to State needs as States integrate their
IDEA Part B data required to meet the
data collection requirements in section
616 and section 618 of IDEA, including
information collected through the IDEA
State Supplemental Survey, into their
longitudinal data systems. This will
improve the capacity of States to collect,
report, analyze, and use high-quality
IDEA Part B data to establish and meet
high expectations for each child with a
disability. The Data Management Center
will help States address challenges with
data management procedures and data
systems architecture and better meet
current and future IDEA Part B data
collection and reporting requirements.
The Data Management Center’s work
will comply with the privacy and
confidentiality protections in the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) and IDEA. The Data
Management Center will not provide the
Department with access to child-level
data and will further ensure that such
data is de-identified, as defined in 34
CFR 99.31(b)(1).
The Data Management Center must be
designed to achieve, at a minimum, the
following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to
integrate IDEA Part B data required
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA
within their longitudinal data systems;
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Increased use of IDEA Part B data
within States by developing products to
allow States to report their special
education data to various stakeholders
(e.g., policymakers, school personnel,
local and State school boards, LEA
administrators, researchers, charter
school authorizers, parents and
advocates, Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations) through their
longitudinal data systems;
(c) Increased number of States that
use data governance and data
management procedures to increase
their capacity to meet the IDEA Part B
reporting requirements under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA;
(d) Increased capacity of States to
utilize their State longitudinal data
systems to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B data
(including data required under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA); and
(e) Increased capacity of States to use
their State longitudinal data systems to
analyze high-quality data on the
participation and outcomes of children
with disabilities across various Federal
programs (e.g., IDEA, Title I of the
ESEA) in order to improve IDEA
programs and the outcomes of children
with disabilities.
In addition, the Data Management
Center must provide a range of targeted
and general TA products and services
for improving States’ capacity to report
high-quality IDEA Part B data required
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA
through their State longitudinal data
systems. Such TA should include, at a
minimum—
(a) In partnership with the
Department, supporting, as needed, the
implementation of an existing open
source electronic tool to assist States in
building EDFacts data files and reports
that can be submitted to the Department
and made available to the public. The
tool must utilize Common Education
Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all
States’ needs associated with reporting
the IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(b) Developing and implementing a
plan to maintain the appropriate
functionality of the open source
electronic tool described in paragraph
(a) as changes are made to data
collections, reporting requirements, file
specifications, and CEDS (such as links
within the system to include TA
products developed by other Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP)/
Department-funded centers or
contractors);
(c) Conducting TA on data governance
to facilitate the use of the open source
electronic tool and providing training to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
State staff to implement the open source
electronic tool;
(d) Revising CEDS ‘‘Connections’’ 1 to
calculate metrics needed to report the
IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(e) Identifying other outputs (e.g.,
reports, Application Programming
Interface, new innovations) of an open
source electronic tool that can support
reporting by States of IDEA Part B data
to different stakeholder groups (e.g.,
LEAs, charter schools, legislative
branch, parents);
(f) Supporting the inclusion of other
OSEP/Department-funded TA centers’
products within the open source
electronic tool or building connections
that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part
B data efficiently into the other TA
products;
(g) Supporting a user group of States
that are using an open source electronic
tool for reporting IDEA Part B data
required under sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA; and
(h) Developing products and
presentations that include tools and
solutions to challenges in data
management procedures and data
system architecture for reporting the
IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.
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
1 A Connection is a way of showing which CEDS
data elements might be necessary for answering a
data question. For users who have aligned their data
systems to CEDS, States will be able to utilize these
Connections via the Connect tool to see which data
elements, in their own systems, would be needed
to answer any data question.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41383
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes
the following requirements for this
program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Requirements:
Applicants must—
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed
project will—
(1) Address State challenges
associated with State data management
procedures, data systems architecture,
and building EDFacts data files and
reports for timely reporting of the IDEA
Part B data to the Department and the
public. To meet this requirement the
applicant must—
(i) Present applicable national, State,
or local data demonstrating the
difficulties that States have encountered
in the collection and submission of
valid and reliable IDEA Part B data;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current
educational and technical issues and
policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B
data collections and EDFacts file
specifications for the IDEA Part B data
collections; and
(iii) Present information about the
current level of implementation of
integrating IDEA Part B data within
State longitudinal data systems and the
reporting of high-quality IDEA Part B
data to the Department and the public.
(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 services and products
meet the needs of the intended
recipients for TA and information;
(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 that depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, outputs,
and intended outcomes of the proposed
project;
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
41384
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
(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:
www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/
resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/
tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptualframework.
(4) Be based on current research and
make use of evidence-based practices
(EBPs).2 To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe—
(i) The current research on data
collection strategies, data management
procedures, and data systems
architecture; 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 or
develop the knowledge base on States’
data management processes and data
systems architecture;
(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;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted,
specialized TA,4 which must identify—
2 For purposes of these requirements, ‘‘evidencebased practices’’ means practices that, at a
minimum, demonstrate a rationale (as defined in 34
CFR 77.1), where a key project component included
in the project’s logic model is informed by research
or evaluation findings that suggest the project
component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.
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 onetime, invited or offered conference presentations by
TA center staff. This category of TA also includes
information or products, such as newsletters,
guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded
from the TA center’s website by independent users.
Brief communications by TA center staff with
recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
(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 potential TA recipients
to work with the project, assessing, at a
minimum, their current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the State and local levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to
prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of
Developing Capacity States; 5 and
(D) The process by which the
proposed project will collaborate with
other OSEP-funded centers and other
federally funded TA centers to develop
and implement a coordinated TA plan
when they are involved in a State; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to
intensive, sustained TA,6 which must
identify—
(A) The intended recipients, which
must be Developing Capacity States,
including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products
and services under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to address
States’ challenges associated with
integrating IDEA Part B data within
State longitudinal data systems and to
report high-quality IDEA Part B data to
the Department and the public, which
should, at a minimum, include
providing on-site consultants to SEAs
to—
(1) Model and document data
management and data system
integration policies, procedures,
one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national
conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive events that extend over a period of time,
such as facilitating a series of conference calls on
single or multiple topics that are designed around
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating
communities of practice can also be considered
targeted, specialized TA.
5 ‘‘Developed Capacity States’’ are defined as
States that can demonstrate that their data systems
include linkages between special education data
and other early childhood and K–12 data. Projects
funded under this focus area will focus on helping
such States utilize those existing linkages to report,
analyze, and use IDEA Part B data.
‘‘Developing Capacity States’’ are defined as
States that have a data system that does not include
linkages between special education data and other
early childhood and K–12 data. Projects funded
under this focus area will focus on helping such
States develop those linkages to allow for more
accurate and efficient reporting, analysis, and use
of IDEA Part B data.
6 ‘‘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.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
processes, and activities within the
State;
(2) Support the State’s use of an open
source electronic tool and provide
technical solutions to meet Statespecific data needs;
(3) Develop a sustainability plan for
the State to maintain the data
management and data system
integration work in the future; and
(4) Support the State’s cybersecurity
plan in collaboration, to the extent
appropriate, with the Department’s
Student Privacy Policy Office and its
Privacy Technical Assistance Center;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure
the readiness of the SEAs 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 State and
local district levels;
(D) Its proposed plan to prioritize
Developing Capacity States with the
greatest need for intensive TA to receive
products and services;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting
SEAs to build or enhance training
systems that include professional
development based on adult learning
principles and coaching;
(F) Its proposed plan for working with
appropriate levels of the education
system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA
providers, districts, local programs,
families) to ensure that there is
communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to
support the collection, reporting,
analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA
Part B data, as well as State data
management procedures and data
systems architecture for building
EDFacts data files and reports for timely
reporting of the IDEA Part B data to the
Department and the public; and
(G) The process by which the
proposed project will collaborate and
coordinate with other OSEP-funded
centers and other Department-funded
TA investments, such as the Institute of
Education Sciences/National Center for
Education Statistics research and
development investments, where
appropriate, to develop and implement
a coordinated TA plan; 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
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
(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—
(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
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 State
Performance Plan/Annual Performance
Report (SPP/APR) 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;
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, nor have any financial interest in the
outcome of the evaluation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
(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;
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable
in relation to the anticipated results and
benefits, and how funds will be spent in
a way that increases their efficiency and
cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better
outcomes; and
(5) The applicant will ensure that it
will recover the lesser of: (A) Its actual
indirect costs as determined by the
grantee’s negotiated indirect cost rate
agreement with its cognizant Federal
agency; and (B) 40 percent of its
modified total direct cost (MTDC) base
as defined in 2 CFR 200.68.
Note: The MTDC is different from the
total amount of the grant. Additionally,
the MTDC is not the same as calculating
a percentage of each or a specific
expenditure category. If the grantee is
billing based on the MTDC base, the
grantee must make its MTDC
documentation available to the program
office and the Department’s Indirect
Cost Unit. If a grantee’s allocable
indirect costs exceed 40 percent of its
MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, the
grantee may not recoup the excess by
shifting the cost to other grants or
contracts with the U.S. Government,
unless specifically authorized by
legislation. The grantee must use nonFederal revenue sources to pay for such
unrecovered costs.
(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,
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41385
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 five percent of
the grant amount to support emerging
needs that are consistent with the
proposed project’s intended outcomes,
as those needs are identified in
consultation with, 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 industryrecognized 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
(6) Budget to provide intensive,
sustained TA to at least 25 States.
This document does not preclude us
from proposing additional priorities or
requirements, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we
choose to use this priority and these
requirements, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
41386
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
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 subject to
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that
may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. 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).
Under Executive Order 13771, for
each new rule that the Department
proposes for notice and comment or
otherwise promulgates that is a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, and that
imposes total costs greater than zero, it
must identify two deregulatory actions.
For Fiscal Year 2020, any new
incremental costs associated with a new
regulation must be fully offset by the
elimination of existing costs through
deregulatory actions. Because the
proposed regulatory action is not
significant, the requirements of
Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
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—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
(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
their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Discussion of Potential Costs and
Benefits
The Department believes that the
costs associated with this final priority
and requirements will be minimal,
while the 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 benefits of
implementing the program—including
improved data integration and improved
data quality—will 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.
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 and requirements
contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1894–0006;
the final priority and requirements do
not affect the currently approved data
collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification: The Secretary certifies that
this final 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 proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they
are independently owned and operated,
are not dominant in their field of
operation, and have total annual
revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit
institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and
operated and not dominant in their field
of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they
are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final
regulatory action will affect are SEAs;
LEAs, including charter schools that
operate as LEAs under State law;
institutions of higher education (IHEs);
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
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
imposed on an applicant by the final
priority and requirements will be
limited to paperwork burden related to
preparing an application and that the
benefits of this final priority and these
final requirements 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 will
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.
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 final
action. That is, the length of the
applications those entities would
submit in the absence of the 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 would 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: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 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.
Mark Schultz,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services
Administration, Delegated the authority to
perform the functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2020–14073 Filed 7–8–20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 251
RIN 0596–AD36
Land Uses; Special Uses; Procedures
for Operating Plans and Agreements
for Powerline Facility Maintenance and
Vegetation Management Within and
Abutting the Linear Boundary of a
Special Use Authorization for a
Powerline Facility
Forest Service, USDA.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture is amending its existing
special use regulations to implement
section 512 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA), as
added by section 211 of division O,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
(hereinafter ‘‘section 512’’). This section
governs the development and approval
of operating plans and agreements for
maintenance and vegetation
management of electric transmission
and distribution line facilities
(powerline facilities) on National Forest
System (NFS) lands inside the linear
boundary of special use authorizations
for powerline facilities and on abutting
NFS lands to remove or prune hazard
trees.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
This rule is effective August 10,
2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41387
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Reggie Woodruff, Energy Program
Manager, Lands and Realty
Management, (202) 205–1196 or
reginal.woodruff@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Need for the Final
Rule
The final rule is being promulgated
pursuant to section 512 (43 U.S.C.
1772), which is an amendment to Title
V of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1761–1772).
Section 501(a)(5) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1761(a)(5)) authorizes the Forest Service
to issue or reissue right-of-way
authorizations for powerline facilities
on NFS lands. Section 501(b)(1) of
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1)) provides
that prior to issuing or reissuing a
special use authorization for a right-ofway, the Forest Service must require
that the applicant submit any plans,
contracts, or other information related to
the proposed or existing use of the rightof-way that the Agency deems necessary
to determine, in accordance with
FLPMA, whether to issue or reissue the
authorization and the terms and
conditions that should be included in
the authorization.
Section 503(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C.
1763(c)) provides that right-of-way
authorizations must be issued or
reissued pursuant to Title V of FLPMA
and its implementing regulations and
must also be subject to such terms and
conditions as the Forest Service may
prescribe regarding extent, duration,
survey, location, construction,
maintenance, transfer or assignment,
and termination. Section 505 of FLPMA
(43 U.S.C. 1765) gives the Forest Service
broad discretion to establish terms and
conditions in right-of-way
authorizations, including terms and
conditions that will effectuate the
purposes of FLPMA and its
implementing regulations and minimize
damage to scenic and aesthetic values
and fish and wildlife habitat and
otherwise protect the environment (43
U.S.C. 1765(a)(i)–(ii)). In addition,
section 505(b) (43 U.S.C. 1765(b))
requires the Forest Service to include
terms and conditions in right-of-way
authorizations that the Agency deems
necessary to protect federal property
and economic interests; efficiently
manage the lands which are subject or
adjacent to the right-of-way; protect
lives and property; protect the interests
of individuals living in the general area
traversed by the right-of-way who rely
on the fish, wildlife, and other biotic
resources of the area for subsistence
purposes; require location of the rightof-way along a route that will cause
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41379-41387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14073]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0025; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.373M.]
Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection--IDEA Data Management Center
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
and requirements under the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection Program. The Department may use this priority and these
requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2020 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 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA Data Management Center
(Data Management Center) will assist States in collecting, reporting,
and determining how to best analyze and use their data to establish and
meet high expectations for each child with a disability by enhancing,
streamlining, and integrating their IDEA Part B data into their State
longitudinal data systems and will customize its TA to meet each
State's specific needs.
DATES: This priority and these requirements are effective August 10,
2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bae, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington,
DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-8272. 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:
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 the 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), 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 (from funds reserved under section
611(c)), 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. Additionally,
the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2019; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 give the
Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) 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.'' Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2019; Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115-245; 132 Stat. 3100
(2018). Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; Div. A, Title
III of Public Law 116-94; 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442; the
Department
[[Page 41380]]
of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Div.
B, Title III of Public Law 115-245, 132 Stat. 3100 (2018); and Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Div. A, Title III of Public Law
116-94, 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
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 November 13, 2019 (84 FR
61585). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority and requirements.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of this document. The only substantive
changes provide examples of potential stakeholders.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation to comment in the
NPP, 18 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and
requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly
related to the proposed priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP
follows. OSERS received comments on several specific topics, including
whether the establishment of two centers (i.e., one center addressing
the needs of Developed Capacity States, and another center addressing
the needs of Developing Capacity States) would be an efficient and
effective approach to meeting the diverse needs of States in
integrating, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part B
data. Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comments: All commenters expressed overall support for the proposed
Data Management Center, and a number of commenters noted the positive
impact of the valuable TA they received from centers previously funded
under this program.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters. Centers funded under this program provide necessary and
valuable TA to the States.
Changes: None.
Providing TA to Developing and Developed Capacity States
Comments: In response to our directed question about whether to
establish two centers, the majority of the commenters did not support
establishing two data management centers (i.e., one center addressing
the needs of Developed Capacity States, and another center addressing
the needs of Developing Capacity States). These commenters noted that
creating two data management centers would (1) generate unnecessary
redundancies and result in inefficient use of Federal TA resources; (2)
make it difficult for States to learn valuable lessons regarding the
integration of IDEA data into State longitudinal data systems from
their colleagues; and (3) create confusion regarding the scope of the
centers and which States would be served by which of the two data
management centers. The commenters noted that one data management
center would be able to support both the Developed Capacity States and
Developing Capacity States through systematic planning.
Discussion: The Department agrees that establishing two data
management centers would generate unnecessary redundancies, be an
inefficient use of resources, make it difficult for States to learn
from each other, and create confusion over the individual scopes of the
centers and which States would be served by which of the two data
management centers. Therefore, we have not incorporated the two-center
structure into the final priority and requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was supportive of establishing two data
management centers and suggested that one center focus on the technical
capacity of States to collect, access, and appropriately share high-
quality, timely data and the other center focus on the human capacity
to more effectively analyze, access, and apply data in efforts to
improve policy, programs, placement, and instructional practice.
Discussion: The Department believes that building a State's
technical capacity and human capacity to integrate IDEA data into State
longitudinal data systems are both necessary components to achieving
the outcomes of this priority. However, we believe that the TA on these
components needs to be provided in a coordinated fashion that allows
data governance principles to guide the data integration work. We have
concluded that separating the TA provided on these components between
two centers would result in a disjointed and fragmented approach to
data integration and a less efficient and effective manner to achieving
the outcomes of this priority. Therefore, we have not incorporated the
two-center structure into the final priority and requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter was supportive of establishing two data
management centers and argued that the Department should provide
examples of the types of TA that each of the data management centers
would provide in order to delineate the distinct roles and
responsibilities of each center and help States identify their needs
and capacity in this area.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we
have concluded that establishing two data management centers to meet
the needs of States in integrating, reporting, analyzing, and using
high-quality IDEA Part B data would result in overlapping scopes,
redundancy of TA products and services, and an inability for States to
learn from their colleagues in the areas of data management and
integration. The Department believes that one data management center
will be an efficient and effective approach to meeting the needs of
Developing Capacity States and Developed Capacity States.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted that States cannot easily be
categorized into Developed or Developing Capacity States. They argued
that data management and integration activities exist on a dynamic and
ever-changing continuum and that States may have some of their IDEA
data linked or integrated into the State longitudinal data system while
other IDEA data are not linked or integrated. Additionally, they argued
States may move back and forth between these two groups as situations
and support for data management and integration work within States
changes over time.
Discussion: The Department agrees that data management and
integration activities exist on a continuum; however, we believe it is
important to focus intensive, sustained TA on Developing Capacity
States. We recognize that a State's status as a Developing Capacity
State may change, and that the intensive, sustained TA will shift along
with a State's status, including whether that status is based on a
portion of a State's data linkages. We continue to believe that the
Data Management Center should prioritize those States that present as
Developing Capacity States.
Changes: None.
[[Page 41381]]
Including IDEA Part C Early Intervention and Part B Preschool Special
Education Data
Comments: A number of commenters supported including IDEA Part C
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data in the
scope of the Data Management Center. These commenters noted that States
are currently using these data to enhance their ability to answer
critical questions that help evaluate and improve early childhood
programs and services. Additionally, they discussed the value of
linking data across sources both vertically (birth to 21 years and
beyond) as well as horizontally (across programs such as IDEA, Head
Start, pre-kindergarten (pre-k), child care, child welfare, health,
Title I, etc.) to provide powerful information about the value of these
programs as they work to improve outcomes for children and families.
Discussion: The Department agrees that the Data Management Center
should support building State capacity to integrate IDEA Part B data,
including the Part B preschool special education data, as required
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, within their longitudinal data
systems. All references to IDEA Part B data throughout the priority are
inclusive of the Part B preschool special education data.
Additionally, the Department agrees with the value of linking IDEA
Part C early intervention data vertically and horizontally to data and
data systems used to support other early childhood and school age
programs (e.g., IDEA, Head Start, pre-k, child care, child welfare,
health, Title I). Such linkages must appropriately address the
applicable privacy and confidentiality requirements under IDEA Part C,
Head Start, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
The Department currently funds the Center for IDEA Early Childhood
Data Systems (CFDA number 84.373Z). That center focuses on early
childhood data issues, including the unique privacy and confidentiality
requirements applicable to IDEA Part C, which are not the focus of this
center. By contrast, the preschool special education data are subject
to the same requirements as the school-aged special education data
under both IDEA Part B and FERPA.
Therefore, the Department believes that including the IDEA Part C
early intervention data in this priority would create unnecessary
overlap in the scope of the two centers and potential duplication of TA
products and services, specifically as it relates to issues of privacy
and confidentiality.
Changes: None.
Expanding the Types and Roles of Stakeholders
Comments: A few commenters recommended specifying the following
stakeholders in outcome (b): Parents, advocates, policymakers, school
personnel, local and State school boards, researchers, charter school
authorizers, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
Discussion: The Department agrees that broad stakeholder
involvement is very important to the success of a center. We are
revising the priority to include examples of potential stakeholders for
States to consider when developing products to report their special
education data.
Changes: We have revised outcome (b) to include the following
examples of stakeholders: Policymakers, school personnel, local and
State school boards, local educational agency (LEA) administrators,
researchers, charter school authorizers, parents and advocates, and
Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
Comments: A few commenters requested that we require the Data
Management Center to establish an advisory group comprised primarily of
State data managers who can help determine needs and focus priorities
of the Data Management Center.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we do
not believe an advisory board is necessary and anticipate that the Data
Management Center will engage established data groups, made up, for
example, of State data managers, to determine the needs and focus
priorities of the Data Management Center. Further, this center will be
required to support a user group of States that are using an open
source electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as noted in paragraph (g) of the TA
requirements. We anticipate that this user group will provide
additional feedback and direction on the functionality of the center's
open source electronic tool.
Changes: None.
TA Needs of States
Comments: Some commenters argued that we should require the Data
Management Center to offer differing levels of expertise and services
based on the various needs of the States.
Discussion: The Department agrees. The Data Management Center will
provide three levels of TA associated with improving States' capacity
to report high-quality IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and
618 of IDEA through their State longitudinal data systems: (1)
Intensive, sustained TA; (2) targeted, specialized TA; and (3)
universal, general TA. Because this requirement is already incorporated
into requirement (b)(5)(iii)(C), no changes are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters requested that we clarify how the TA
needs of States are identified and the center will meet the needs of
charter schools that are public schools within an LEA and charter
schools that operate as their own LEA.
Discussion: Applicants under this priority will be required to
describe how they will identify the TA needs of States. This priority
does not require a specific approach to identifying the State TA needs.
However, the Department agrees that charter schools should be
identified as a stakeholder group when the center is identifying
outputs (e.g., reports, Application Programming Interface, new
innovations) of an open source electronic tool.
Changes: We have revised TA requirement (e) pertaining to targeted
and general TA products and services to include charter schools as an
example of stakeholders States should consider when identifying outputs
generated by the Data Management Center's open source electronic tool.
Comments: A few commenters requested that we incorporate additional
requirements into the ``Significance'' section. Generally, these
commenters suggested that applicants present information about best
practice strategies on data integration that result in reduced
administrative burdens for multiple users and increase the potential
relevant IDEA Part B and longitudinal data for use outside of IDEA
oversight.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we
believe these requirements are outside the scope of this Data
Management Center, though the center will support States in their
efforts to implement data integration strategies to meet the needs of
their stakeholder groups, which we have further identified as a way to
better address the data use needs of schools.
Changes: As discussed above, we have revised outcome (b) to include
the following examples of stakeholders: Policymakers, school personnel,
local and State school boards, LEA administrators, researchers, charter
school authorizers, parents and advocates, and Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations.
Comments: One commenter requested that we clarify that the TA
provided by the center will meet the needs of any
[[Page 41382]]
applying entity regardless of size, including Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations.
Discussion: 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, which apply to all of the
entities that receive an IDEA Part B grant (i.e., the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each of the
outlying areas and the freely associated States, and the Bureau of
Indian Education). While the Data Management Center would not directly
provide intensive, targeted, and universal TA to entities other than
those that receive IDEA Part B grants, it would support those grantees'
reporting of IDEA Part B data to different stakeholder groups including
LEAs, charter schools, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested that the references to Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA),
in outcome (e) be revised to ``all titles'' of ESEA.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the concern but did not
intend the list of examples provided in outcome (e) to be exhaustive.
The Data Management Center will support States in their efforts to
identify the Federal programs to analyze.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter requested that we revise requirement (1)
under ``Quality of project services'' to prioritize the treatment for
members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based
on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, rather
than ensure their equal access and treatment.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment. Requirement (1)
under ``Quality of project services'' mirrors the language in the
related selection criteria in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 75.210). Under this requirement,
applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project will ensure equal
access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability. We believe that the proposed requirement adequately
addresses our interest in ensuring that project services are designed
to ensure equal access to traditionally underrepresented groups.
Changes: None.
Intended Outcomes of Integrated State Longitudinal Data Systems
Comments: A commenter requested the Department clarify that the end
result of an integrated State longitudinal data system should be to
inform State and district decision-making in regard to targeting needed
resources to protect civil rights and to improving the outcomes of
students with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department agrees that States should use their
State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-quality data on the
participation and outcomes of children with disabilities across various
Federal programs in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of
children with disabilities. We believe outcome (e) addresses the
requested clarification. Outcome (e) states, ``The Data Management
Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum . . . [i]ncreased
capacity of States to use their State longitudinal data systems to
analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children
with disabilities across various Federal programs (e.g., IDEA, Title I
of the ESEA) in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of
children with disabilities.''
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter requested that the Department add language
that States must work to ensure they utilize charter school and
traditional public school data to protect civil rights and improve the
outcomes of students with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we
believe specifying how States utilize data in their analyses is beyond
the scope of this priority. The Data Management Center will support
States in their efforts to integrate their IDEA Part B data required
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal data
systems and use their State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-
quality data on the participation and outcomes of children with
disabilities across various Federal programs.
Changes: None.
Data Collection Under IDEA
Comments: A commenter recommended that State IDEA data collections
capture the following data elements:
Whether the student has a speech or language disorder;
If the student is receiving IDEA services, the disability
category and whether it is the primary or secondary impairment;
If the student is receiving services under section 504,
the disability category and whether it is the primary or secondary
impairment;
Whether the student is receiving hearing or speech and
language services; and
If the student has hearing loss, whether it is in one or
both ears; the degree of hearing loss in each ear; and the type of
hearing instruments used in the classroom setting.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, this
priority does not address the data collection and reporting
requirements for States under IDEA. The EDFacts information collection
package (OMB control number 1850-0925), which would more appropriately
address these issues, was published in the Federal Register on April 8,
2019 (84 FR 13913). It addressed the IDEA Section 618 Part B data
collection requirements and was open for public comment from April 8,
2019, to May 8, 2019.
Changes: None.
Final Priority:
IDEA Data Management Center.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (Data Management
Center). The Data Management Center will respond to State needs as
States integrate their IDEA Part B data required to meet the data
collection requirements in section 616 and section 618 of IDEA,
including information collected through the IDEA State Supplemental
Survey, into their longitudinal data systems. This will improve the
capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality
IDEA Part B data to establish and meet high expectations for each child
with a disability. The Data Management Center will help States address
challenges with data management procedures and data systems
architecture and better meet current and future IDEA Part B data
collection and reporting requirements. The Data Management Center's
work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality protections in
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA. The
Data Management Center will not provide the Department with access to
child-level data and will further ensure that such data is de-
identified, as defined in 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1).
The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to integrate IDEA Part B data
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal
data systems;
[[Page 41383]]
(b) Increased use of IDEA Part B data within States by developing
products to allow States to report their special education data to
various stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, school personnel, local and
State school boards, LEA administrators, researchers, charter school
authorizers, parents and advocates, Indian Tribes and Tribal
organizations) through their longitudinal data systems;
(c) Increased number of States that use data governance and data
management procedures to increase their capacity to meet the IDEA Part
B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(d) Increased capacity of States to utilize their State
longitudinal data systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-
quality IDEA Part B data (including data required under sections 616
and 618 of IDEA); and
(e) Increased capacity of States to use their State longitudinal
data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and
outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs
(e.g., IDEA, Title I of the ESEA) in order to improve IDEA programs and
the outcomes of children with disabilities.
In addition, the Data Management Center must provide a range of
targeted and general TA products and services for improving States'
capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA through their State longitudinal data
systems. Such TA should include, at a minimum--
(a) In partnership with the Department, supporting, as needed, the
implementation of an existing open source electronic tool to assist
States in building EDFacts data files and reports that can be submitted
to the Department and made available to the public. The tool must
utilize Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all States'
needs associated with reporting the IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(b) Developing and implementing a plan to maintain the appropriate
functionality of the open source electronic tool described in paragraph
(a) as changes are made to data collections, reporting requirements,
file specifications, and CEDS (such as links within the system to
include TA products developed by other Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP)/Department-funded centers or contractors);
(c) Conducting TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the
open source electronic tool and providing training to State staff to
implement the open source electronic tool;
(d) Revising CEDS ``Connections'' \1\ to calculate metrics needed
to report the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Connection is a way of showing which CEDS data elements
might be necessary for answering a data question. For users who have
aligned their data systems to CEDS, States will be able to utilize
these Connections via the Connect tool to see which data elements,
in their own systems, would be needed to answer any data question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Identifying other outputs (e.g., reports, Application
Programming Interface, new innovations) of an open source electronic
tool that can support reporting by States of IDEA Part B data to
different stakeholder groups (e.g., LEAs, charter schools, legislative
branch, parents);
(f) Supporting the inclusion of other OSEP/Department-funded TA
centers' products within the open source electronic tool or building
connections that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part B data efficiently
into the other TA products;
(g) Supporting a user group of States that are using an open source
electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA; and
(h) Developing products and presentations that include tools and
solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system
architecture for reporting the IDEA Part B data required under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Requirements:
Applicants must--
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address State challenges associated with State data management
procedures, data systems architecture, and building EDFacts data files
and reports for timely reporting of the IDEA Part B data to the
Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating
the difficulties that States have encountered in the collection and
submission of valid and reliable IDEA Part B data;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical
issues and policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B data collections
and EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA Part B data collections;
and
(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation
of integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data systems
and the reporting of high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department
and the public.
(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 services and products meet the needs of the
intended recipients for TA and information;
(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 that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
[[Page 41384]]
(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: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based
practices (EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based
practices'' means practices that, at a minimum, demonstrate a
rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component
included in the project's logic model is informed by research or
evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to
improve relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on data collection strategies, data
management procedures, and data systems architecture; 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 or develop the knowledge base on
States' data management processes and data systems architecture;
(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;
(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 State and local levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of Developing Capacity States; \5\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Developed Capacity States'' are defined as States that can
demonstrate that their data systems include linkages between special
education data and other early childhood and K-12 data. Projects
funded under this focus area will focus on helping such States
utilize those existing linkages to report, analyze, and use IDEA
Part B data.
``Developing Capacity States'' are defined as States that have a
data system that does not include linkages between special education
data and other early childhood and K-12 data. Projects funded under
this focus area will focus on helping such States develop those
linkages to allow for more accurate and efficient reporting,
analysis, and use of IDEA Part B data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with
other OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to
develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a
State; 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 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, which must be Developing Capacity
States, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive
the products and services under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to address States' challenges associated
with integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data
systems and to report high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department
and the public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site
consultants to SEAs to--
(1) Model and document data management and data system integration
policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the State;
(2) Support the State's use of an open source electronic tool and
provide technical solutions to meet State-specific data needs;
(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to maintain the
data management and data system integration work in the future; and
(4) Support the State's cybersecurity plan in collaboration, to the
extent appropriate, with the Department's Student Privacy Policy Office
and its Privacy Technical Assistance Center;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs 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 State and
local district levels;
(D) Its proposed plan to prioritize Developing Capacity States with
the greatest need for intensive TA to receive products and services;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance
training systems that include professional development based on adult
learning principles and coaching;
(F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, local
programs, families) to ensure that there is communication between each
level and that there are systems in place to support the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part B data, as well
as State data management procedures and data systems architecture for
building EDFacts data files and reports for timely reporting of the
IDEA Part B data to the Department and the public; and
(G) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate and
coordinate with other OSEP-funded centers and other Department-funded
TA investments, such as the Institute of Education Sciences/National
Center for Education Statistics research and development investments,
where appropriate, to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan; 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
[[Page 41385]]
(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, 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 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 State Performance
Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) 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;
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits, and how funds will be spent in a way
that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes; and
(5) The applicant will ensure that it will recover the lesser of:
(A) Its actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee's negotiated
indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant Federal agency; and (B)
40 percent of its modified total direct cost (MTDC) base as defined in
2 CFR 200.68.
Note: The MTDC is different from the total amount of the grant.
Additionally, the MTDC is not the same as calculating a percentage of
each or a specific expenditure category. If the grantee is billing
based on the MTDC base, the grantee must make its MTDC documentation
available to the program office and the Department's Indirect Cost
Unit. If a grantee's allocable indirect costs exceed 40 percent of its
MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, the grantee may not recoup the excess
by shifting the cost to other grants or contracts with the U.S.
Government, unless specifically authorized by legislation. The grantee
must use non-Federal revenue sources to pay for such unrecovered costs.
(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,
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
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, 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;
(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
(6) Budget to provide intensive, sustained TA to at least 25
States.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
[[Page 41386]]
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
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
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
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).
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the
proposed regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of
Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
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 their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with 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 the costs associated with this final
priority and requirements will be minimal, while the 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 benefits of implementing the program--
including improved data integration and improved data quality--will
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.
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 and requirements contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006; the final priority and requirements do not affect the currently
approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final 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 proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing
a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); 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
[[Page 41387]]
imposed on an applicant by the final priority and requirements will be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of this final priority and these final requirements
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 will 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.
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 final action. That is, the
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence
of the 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 would 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: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. 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 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.
Mark Schultz,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-14073 Filed 7-8-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
