Final Priority and Requirements-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To Address Significant Disproportionality, 48129-48135 [2023-15852]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48129-48135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2023-OSERS-0057]


Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To 
Address Significant Disproportionality

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

ACTION: Final priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority 
and requirements for the National Technical Assistance Center to 
Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) under the 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance 
Listing Number 84.373E. The Department may use this priority and one or 
more of these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We 
will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a Center to 
focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical 
assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data 
collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center will 
support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best 
analyze and use their data to address issues of significant 
disproportionality and will customize its TA to meet each State's 
specific needs.

DATES: The priority and requirements are effective August 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email: 
[email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the 
amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA 
activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection and

[[Page 48130]]

reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount 
the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is 
$25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 
616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and 
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information 
determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are 
collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also 
requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which 
include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2023, Public Law 117-328, gives the Secretary authority to use funds 
reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to ``administer and carry out 
other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, 
quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.'' Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div. H, Title III, 136 
Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div. 
H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.646-300.647, 300.702; as 
well as IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance 
Report (APR) Indicators 9 and 10 regarding disproportionate 
representation resulting from inappropriate identification, under 20 
U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C) and 34 CFR 300.600(d)(3); and IDEA Part B SPP/APR 
Indicator 4 regarding significant discrepancy in suspensions and 
expulsion rates, under 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1412(a)(22) and 34 
CFR 300.600(d)(1) and 300.170.
    We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) 
for this program in the Federal Register on March 28, 2023 (88 FR 
18280). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the 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 most significant 
change, as discussed below, is the addition of two expected outcomes 
for the Center.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 20 
parties submitted comments addressing the priority and requirements.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priority and requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of 
the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics, 
including the topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.

General Comments

    Comments: Several commenters specifically expressed support for the 
proposed center.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with 
the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide 
necessary and valuable TA to States.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters suggested that the Department revise 
the Center's expected outcomes to include outcomes related to the 
engagement of parents in the use of data to address disparities and the 
provision of data in accessible and understandable formats.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters that improving 
State capacity to engage parents in the use of IDEA data will enhance 
the State's ability to address disparities. Additionally, it is vitally 
important to provide data to stakeholders in accessible and 
understandable formats to support the use of the data to address 
disparities revealed in the data collected. For this reason, the 
Department will include additional expected outcomes to address the 
commenters' concerns.
    Changes: The final priority includes two additional expected 
outcomes for the Center, expected outcome (h), focused on improved 
capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to assist local 
educational agencies (LEAs) to engage parents, families, advocates, and 
other stakeholders to use data to address disparities revealed in the 
data they collect and (i), related to improved capacity of SEAs, and 
LEAs through their work with SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable, 
accessible, and understandable formats for parents, families, 
advocates, and other stakeholders.
    Comments: A number of commenters proposed that the Department 
expand the list of suggested Department-funded TA centers with which 
the Center may collaborate. Specifically, the commenters proposed 
including equity-related centers to the current list of data-related 
centers.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters. The Center 
should collaborate with both equity- and data-related Department-funded 
TA centers, as appropriate.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (iv)(E) of the final 
requirements to require applicants to submit the proposed plan for 
collaborating and coordinating with Department-funded projects, 
including those providing data-related support to States (e.g., the 
IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the 
National Center for Systemic Improvement) and equity-related support to 
States (e.g., Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports 
(PBIS), and Regional Equity Assistance Centers), where appropriate, in 
order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement 
products and services to meet the purposes of this priority.
    Comments: Several commenters expressed interest in ensuring that 
the Center will assist SEAs to specifically work with both rural 
districts and charter schools that are considered LEAs for the purposes 
of the identification of significant disproportionality.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that SEAs need to support all of 
their LEAs related to the identification of significant 
disproportionality. The proposed priority would require the proposed 
Center to provide TA to SEAs to improve their capacity to support all 
of their LEAs, which includes rural LEAs and charter schools that are 
considered LEAs, around issues related to significant 
disproportionality. Therefore, the priority is consistent with the 
commenters' suggestion and no change is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A number of commenters expressed concerns that the 
development of an additional data center focused on significant 
disproportionality would be duplicative of and overlap with the 
Department's currently funded centers already providing TA related to 
significant disproportionality (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center 
for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic 
Improvement). The commenters noted that numerous TA opportunities and 
products have been developed by those existing centers and are in use 
by States.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, the 
Center will not duplicate efforts of other centers, as

[[Page 48131]]

it will focus on improving the data collection and analysis capacity of 
States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for 
implementation of IDEA section 618(d) are collected, analyzed, and 
accurately reported to the Department. Additionally, the Center will 
build TA efforts already undertaken by Office of Special Education 
Programs (OSEP)-funded centers. Existing centers have been tasked with 
assisting States in their initial implementation of the significant 
disproportionality regulations. While there has been progress, States 
still struggle with implementing a robust methodology and assisting 
LEAs as they review and, as necessary, revise their policies, 
practices, and procedures in the area of the identified significant 
disproportionality. Additionally, a recent Office of the Inspector 
General report \1\ noted concerns with the accuracy and reliability of 
State-reported data related to significant disproportionality. 
Therefore, there is a demonstrated need for a center with a singular 
focus on assisting States to collect, report, analyze, and use 
significant disproportionality data. The work of this Center is 
critical to meeting this Administration's priority to ensure States and 
LEAs address significant disproportionality in the identification, 
placement, or incidence and duration of disciplinary actions, including 
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race 
and ethnicity. Consistent with the Administration's priorities, this 
Center will support SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, in 
conducting root cause analyses. With effective supports to identify the 
potential root causes and contributing factors of the significant 
disproportionality, LEAs can meaningfully address their identified 
significant disproportionality and set a path towards more equitable 
services for all students, regardless of their race and ethnicity. 
Finally, if there are any areas where there appears to be duplication 
or overlap, project officers for the currently funded centers will work 
together with the project officer for the new Center to develop a plan 
to ensure appropriate collaboration, rather than duplication, occurs 
across the impacted centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Please see www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ED/equity-idea-final-inspection-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comments: One group of commenters provided responses to the 
Department's directed question about the supports States require in 
reviewing policies, practices, and procedures and understanding the 
expenditure requirements for comprehensive coordinated early 
intervening services (CCEIS). The commenters suggested that States need 
TA to better understand the components of policies, practices, and 
procedures that lead to significant disproportionality, as well as TA 
on the requirements around the expenditure of funds for CCEIS.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates and agrees with the 
commenters' suggestions. Understanding the potential interaction 
between significant disproportionality and the policies, practices, and 
procedures of an LEA and understanding the expenditure requirements for 
CCEIS are both important, as they are fundamental requirements of the 
significant disproportionality regulation. The Department believes that 
proposed expected outcome paragraphs (c) and (d) adequately address the 
commenters' suggestions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter responded to the first directed question 
about common challenges or barriers experienced by SEAs and LEAs when 
using IDEA data to address significant disproportionality and promote 
equity. The commenter identified the following State needs: addressing 
critical shortages of specialized instructional support personnel; 
reviewing and revising policies, practices, and procedures; and 
providing general guidance on best practices related to the evaluation 
of students with disabilities, the use of schoolwide approaches such as 
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and developing and 
enhancing a multi-tiered system of supports.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestions. 
In regard to the commenter's first suggestion, while the Department 
agrees that securing highly skilled instructional staff is a critical 
need of LEAs, the Center's focus is on improving data collection and 
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information 
determined necessary for implementation of IDEA are collected, 
analyzed, and accurately reported to the Department. The Department 
agrees with the commenter's second suggestion that SEAs require TA on 
reviewing and, as necessary, revising policies, practices, and 
procedures identified as contributing to significant 
disproportionality. The Department believes that proposed expected 
outcome paragraph (c) adequately addresses the commenter's suggestion. 
Finally, the Department agrees with the commenter's third suggestion 
that States would benefit from general guidance on best practices 
related to the evaluation of students with disabilities, the use of 
schoolwide approaches such as positive behavioral interventions and 
supports, and developing and enhancing a multi-tiered system of 
supports. To this end, OSEP funds other centers (e.g., National Center 
on Educational Outcomes, Center on PBIS, and National Center on 
Intensive Intervention) that provide TA on these topics.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Another group of commenters responded to all of the 
Department's directed questions by noting that existing OSEP centers 
have already developed resources to provide TA on the areas addressed 
in the directed questions. These commenters did, however, note that 
their biggest challenge was in understanding the differences in 
requirements between significant disproportionality and the IDEA Part B 
SPP/APR Indicators 4 (Suspension/Expulsion), and 9 and 10 
(Disproportionate Representation).
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support of 
OSEP's currently funded centers. As stated in a response above, the 
Center will build upon the work that has already been completed. The 
Department believes that, through the implementation of proposed 
expected outcome paragraph (f), the Center will assist States and LEAs 
to improve capacity to distinguish SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/
Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate 
Representation), which are collected under section 616 of IDEA, from 
significant disproportionality data, which are collected under section 
618 of IDEA.
    Changes: None.

Final Priority

National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To Address 
Significant Disproportionality

    Priority:
    The purpose of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data 
to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) is to promote equity 
by improving State capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and 
use section 618 data to address issues of significant 
disproportionality. The Center will also work to increase the capacity 
of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to use their data to 
conduct

[[Page 48132]]

robust root cause analyses and identify evidence-based strategies for 
effectively using funds reserved for CCEIS.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of SEAs to analyze and use their data 
collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA to accurately identify 
significant disproportionality in the State and the LEAs of the State;
    (b) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to use data collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA, as 
well as other available data, to conduct root cause analyses in order 
to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of an LEA's 
significant disproportionality;
    (c) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to review and, as necessary, revise policies, practices, and 
procedures identified as contributing to significant 
disproportionality, and to address any other factors identified as 
contributing to the significant disproportionality;
    (d) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs, as needed, in using 
data to drive decisions related to the use of funds reserved for CCEIS;
    (e) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they 
collect;
    (f) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use data related to 
significant disproportionality and apply the state methodology for 
identifying significant disproportionality, including distinguishing 
data collected under section 616 of IDEA (specifically, SPP/APR 
Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 
(Disproportionate Representation));
    (g) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate their own 
methodology for identifying significant disproportionality;
    (h) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs to engage parents, 
families, advocates, and other stakeholders to use data to address 
disparities revealed in the data they collect; and
    (i) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable, accessible, and understandable 
formats for parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders.
    Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition 
using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in 
the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
this program. We may apply 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 in collecting, analyzing, reporting, 
and using their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to correctly 
identify and address significant disproportionality. To meet this 
requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as well as the 
requirements related to significant disproportionality in section 
618(d) of IDEA;
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to 
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work 
with SEAs, to analyze and use their data collected under section 618 of 
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality;
    (iii) Describe how SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, are 
currently analyzing and using their data collected under section 618 of 
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality; and
    (iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, and LEAs 
through their work with SEAs, including a variety of LEAs such as urban 
and rural LEAs and charter schools that are LEAs, have in collecting, 
reporting, analyzing, and using their IDEA section 618 data to address 
significant disproportionality; and
    (2) Result in improved IDEA data collection, reporting, analysis, 
and use in identifying and addressing significant disproportionality.
    (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 of TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices

[[Page 48133]]

(EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of these requirements,''evidence-based 
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings 
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention 
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current capacity of SEAs to use IDEA section 618 data to 
correctly identify significant disproportionality and assist LEAs as 
they conduct root cause analyses and review LEA policies, practices, 
and procedures;
    (ii) Current research on effective practices to address significant 
disproportionality, particularly through the provision of CCEIS; and
    (iii) 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 
the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to 
collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 618 data in a manner 
that correctly identifies and addresses significant disproportionality 
in States and LEAs;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA 
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\4\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach; and
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\5\ which 
must identify---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA 
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as 
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, 
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or 
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA personnel 
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA level;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance 
training systems related to the use of IDEA section 618 data to 
correctly identify and address significant disproportionality that 
include professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching;
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and 
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and 
that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs, 
and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and 
use IDEA section 618 data to correctly identify and address significant 
disproportionality; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA 
Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic Improvement) and 
equity-related support to States (e.g., Center on PBIS, and Regional 
Equity Assistance Centers), where appropriate, in order to align 
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and 
services to meet the purposes of this priority;
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, or have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 48134]]

    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one- and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or 
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting 
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and 
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than 
the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are 
conducted virtually.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two- and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period; 
and
    Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than 
the end of the third quarter of each budget period if the conference is 
conducted virtually.
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility; and
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments 
or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or

[[Page 48135]]

provide information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the final priority and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify the costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose 
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this 
program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements 
on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects 
that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets 
a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing 
requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these 
requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
    The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal 
government outweigh the costs associated with this action.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the priority and requirements are 
needed to administer the program effectively.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priority, including requirements, contains information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028; the final priority, including requirements, does not 
affect the currently approved data collection.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 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 LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State 
law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private 
nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; 
Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We 
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by this final priority, 
including requirements, will be limited to paperwork burden related to 
preparing an application and that the benefits of this final priority 
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and 
requirements, imposes 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 proposed action. That is, the 
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence 
of this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an 
application will likely be the same.
    This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be 
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under 
this program.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or 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.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-15852 Filed 7-24-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P