Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, 56217-56222 [2024-15051]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56217-56222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15051]



[[Page 56217]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0011]


Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Technical 
Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, 
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data

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

ACTION: Final priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority 
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part 
B Data (Data Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection program. The Department may use this priority and one or 
more of these requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 
and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an 
identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements 
under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
This Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and 
determining how to best analyze and use their data and will customize 
its TA to meet each State's specific needs.

DATES: The priority and requirements are effective August 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 245-6391. Email: [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 one-half of one percent of 
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide 
TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet 
the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of 
IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside 
for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate 
of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review 
the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data 
and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 
of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the 
Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 
to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection 
requirements, which include the data collection and reporting 
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the 
Secretary may use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to 
``administer and carry out other services and activities to improve 
data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of 
the IDEA.'' Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 
118-47, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.373Y.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
    We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) 
for this program in the Federal Register on March 4, 2024 (89 FR 
15525). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the priority and requirements.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, nine 
parties submitted comments addressing the priority and requirements.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priority and requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of 
the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics, 
including funding and topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.
    Comments: Multiple commenters specifically expressed support for 
the proposed center and the proposed objectives.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with 
the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide 
necessary and valuable TA under the IDEA to States.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter proposed a shift towards a more 
participatory approach to data collection under the IDEA, an approach 
that would consider the voices and experiences of diverse stakeholders.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion 
and shares their interest in obtaining broad and diverse input 
regarding the IDEA data collection process. Ultimately, the Department 
is required to collect these data under section 618 of IDEA. Thus, the 
participatory data collection methods that the commenter suggested, 
such as community forums, focus groups, and surveys designed to capture 
the perspectives and needs of diverse stakeholders, may be helpful as 
State educational agencies (SEAs) implement their IDEA data collection 
responsibilities, but are not applicable at this time when the 
Department's data collection is defined by the IDEA statute.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: In response to the Department's request for comment on 
whether it should utilize a phased-in approach for funding this Center, 
such that the award amount for the initial years of the project would 
be lower than the later years, the majority of commenters expressed 
concerns. Commenters specifically noted concerns about the funding 
level given the turnover and shortages on data staff faced by SEAs and 
need for the TA the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) data 
centers provide to new data staff, as well as the impact decreased TA 
would have on data quality.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that SEAs are facing significant 
issues related to shortages and turnover of their data staff. The 
Department also agrees that a substantial decrease in funding for TA 
could impact data quality. For this reason, the Department intends to 
limit any phased-in funding, with smaller awards in the initial years 
of the project and higher awards in later years (to the extent 
appropriations under IDEA by Congress permit this flexibility) and 
still maintain the proposed outcomes and activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended including specific reference to 
artificial intelligence (AI) within the administrative requirements,

[[Page 56218]]

as it is an increasingly important technology in this field.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the commenter's interest in, and 
support of, AI for the data collection, reporting, and use of IDEA 
section 618 data, the Department will consider whether and how AI 
should be incorporated into the TA on data collection when the 
Department develops the cooperative agreement and during the 
implementation of the grant.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter proposed adding specific outcomes that 
support data integration efforts across State agencies and federally 
funded pre-kindergarten through age 21 education programs that would 
improve States' capacity to use data for programming decisions.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates and agrees with the need to 
support and increase data integration across State agencies. The 
Department funds the Center on the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID) to 
specifically support States on how to integrate and better use their 
Federal data, with a specific focus on the IDEA data (ALN 84.373M). 
Under the requirements within the priority, applicants must describe 
how they would collaborate and coordinate with other Department-funded 
TA investments, such as CIID, to align their work to better meet the 
purposes of the Center. In order to decrease confusion in the field and 
the potential overlap of this TA center and CIID, the Department 
declines to add an additional outcome related to State-level data 
integration.
    Changes: None.

Final Priority

    National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to 
Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).
    The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current 
and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements, 
improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and 
other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and 
address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
    The Data Center will provide TA to help States to (1) effectively 
and efficiently respond to all IDEA-related data submission 
requirements; (2) improve the analyses of IDEA data to the extent these 
analyses respond to critical policy questions that will facilitate 
program improvement and compliance accountability; and (3) comply with 
applicable privacy requirements, including the privacy and 
confidentiality requirements under IDEA and the Family Educational 
Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR 
part 99.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Center must review the need for additional resources 
(with input from the Department) and disseminate existing resources 
developed by the Department, such as: (1) IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk 
(Surprenant & Miller, August 24, 2022); and (2) Data sharing 
agreement template (at https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-mou-template/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Data Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, 
reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data on children with 
disabilities ages 3 through 21 required under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA. However, the Data Center will not provide TA on Part B data 
required under section 616 of IDEA for Indicators B7 (Preschool 
Outcomes) and B12 (Early Childhood Transition); TA on collecting, 
reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data associated with children 
with disabilities ages 3 through 5 for these indicators will be 
provided by the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early 
Childhood Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and 
promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among 
relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs), 
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality 
of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
    (b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely 
data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent 
future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
    (c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and 
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing 
personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training 
modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes), 
and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State 
collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that 
States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and 
districts;
    (d) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs in collaboration with SEAs, 
to collect, report, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to 
identify programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root 
causes of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress 
towards outcomes;
    (e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data 
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate 
tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the 
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to 
communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents and 
families, school boards, the general public); and
    (f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B data.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any 
year in which this program is in effect.

Requirements

    Applicants must--

[[Page 56219]]

    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their 
capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as both a 
means of improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths 
and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant 
must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting 
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems, 
as appropriate;
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to 
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and 
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and
    (iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and 
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes, which 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: 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 (EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report 
and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as both a 
means of improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for 
improvement; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on 
the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection 
and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections 
616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA personnel 
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA 
levels;
    (C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a 
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data 
quality issues, as measured by the Office of Special Education 
Programs' (OSEP's) review of the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and 
618 data;
    (D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction 
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems related to the IDEA 
Part B data collection and reporting requirements that include 
professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching;
    (E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA

[[Page 56220]]

providers, LEAs, schools, and families) to ensure that there is 
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to 
support the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet Part B data 
collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of the 
IDEA; and
    (F) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded TA investments (e.g., the Center funded under 
84.373Z, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center for the 
Integration of IDEA Data, the Data Center to Address Significant 
Disproportionality, and the Weiss Center) and Institute of Education 
Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research and 
development investments, where appropriate, in order to align 
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and 
services to meet the purposes of this priority; and
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application and 
administrative requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance 
report and at the end of Year 2 for the review process; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are 
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, easily accessible, and 
useful to recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include, in appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality 
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
    (5) Include, in appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and

[[Page 56221]]

    (6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
targeted and intensive TA to States.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

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

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

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

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

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

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priority, including requirements, contains information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028; the final priority, including requirements, does not 
affect the currently approved data collection.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect 
are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State 
law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private 
nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; 
Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We 
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by this final priority, 
including requirements, will be limited to paperwork burden related to 
preparing an application and that the benefits of this final priority 
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and 
requirements impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for 
funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to 
apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, 
an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an 
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the 
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity will most 
likely apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the 
costs of preparing an application.

[[Page 56222]]

    We believe that the final priority and requirements will not impose 
any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the 
entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the 
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence 
of this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an 
application will likely be the same.
    This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be 
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under 
this program.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other Department documents published in the 
Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access Department documents published in the Federal 
Register by using the article search feature at 
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. 2024-15051 Filed 7-5-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P