Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-IDEA Data Management Center, 88185-88192 [2024-25862]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88185-88192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0114]


Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--IDEA Data 
Management Center

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority 
for an IDEA Data Management Center, under the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program. The Department may use this priority for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 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 and Part C 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 Part B and Part C 
data to establish and meet high expectations for each child with a 
disability by enhancing, streamlining, and integrating IDEA Part B data 
into their State longitudinal data systems (SLDS), and IDEA Part C data 
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data into their early 
childhood integrated data system (ECIDS). A brief summary of the 
proposed rule is available at www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2024-OSERS-0114.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 21, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation 
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, 
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted 
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period 
closes. To ensure the Department does not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit 
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, 
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting 
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under 
``FAQ.''
    Note: The Department's policy is generally to make comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bae, U.S. Department of Education, 
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 
(202) 987-1557. 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: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect 
in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the 
specific section of the proposed priority that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from the proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we 
could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while 
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed priority by accessing Regulations.gov. To 
inspect comments in person, please contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other

[[Page 88186]]

documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priority. If 
you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or 
auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary the 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 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 sections 616 and 642 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 Further Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 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.'' 
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    Assistance Listing Number: 84.373M.
    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.
    Proposed Priority:
    This document contains one proposed priority.
    IDEA Data Management Center.
    Background:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to establish a TA center 
to provide TA to improve States' capacity to collect, report, analyze, 
and use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C data (including data 
reported under IDEA sections 616, 618, and 642) by enhancing, 
streamlining, and integrating IDEA Part B data into their SLDS and IDEA 
Part C data and IDEA Part B, preschool special education data into 
their ECIDS. The Data Management Center's work and TA will identify 
applicable requirements for, and reflect compliance with, the privacy 
and confidentiality protections under Parts B and C of the IDEA and the 
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 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).
    Integrating SLDS with IDEA Part B data is a complex issue. While a 
majority of States have an SLDS, until recently very few of those 
systems integrated IDEA Part B data. Specifically, in the IDEA State 
Supplemental Survey in school year (SY) 2015-16, only 18 of 60 (30 
percent) Part B reporting entities responded that all their special 
education data was in their SLDS. However, in the 2022 survey data 
reported to the National Center for Education Statistics through the 
SLDS State Data Capacity Survey,\1\ 40 (71 percent) respondents 
indicated that they now connect Part B data to kindergarten-12 data in 
the SLDS. An additional three (5.4 percent) report that it is in 
progress and five (8.9 percent) report that it is planned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on the National Center for Education 
Statistics SLDS State Data Capacity Survey, please go to https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Integrating IDEA Part B data into their SLDS adds value.\2\ It 
allows States to standardize data collected across programs, meet 
Federal reporting requirements, provide additional information on the 
participation in other programs by children with disabilities, and 
support program improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information on the SLDS Grant Program and its 
intended outcomes, please visit: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/about_SLDS.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, most children with disabilities are educated in the same 
settings as children without disabilities; \3\ however, the majority of 
States continue to separate disability and special education related 
data from other data collected on students (e.g., demographics, 
assessment data). Some States are using separate data collections to 
meet the reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA 
(e.g., discipline, assessment, educational environments) rather than 
including all data elements needed for Federal reporting in their SLDS. 
Through interactions with States and TA providers around data quality 
needs and challenges, the Department has found that programs, 
districts, and State educational agencies (SEAs) are using different 
collection processes to gather data for their required data 
submissions, resulting in different degrees of reliability in the data 
collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products-state-level-data-files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States with fragmented data systems are more likely to have missing 
or duplicate data. For example, if a State collects and maintains data 
on disciplinary removals of children with disabilities in a special 
education data system but maintains data on the demographics of all 
children in another data system, the State may not be able to 
accurately match all data on disciplinary removals with the demographic 
data needed to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting 
requirements. Since discipline data is used to examine issues related 
to disproportionality affecting children with disabilities, inaccurate 
data or incomplete data will impact States' ability to use the data to 
make appropriate programmatic changes aimed at addressing exclusionary 
practices within educational settings.
    In addition, States with fragmented data systems often lack the 
capacity to cross-validate related data elements. For example, if the 
data on the type of statewide assessment in which children with 
disabilities participate is housed in one database and the grade in 
which children are enrolled is housed in another, the State may not be 
able to accurately match the assessment data to the grade-level data to 
meet the Federal reporting requirements, including IDEA Part B 
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The 
inability to match children with disabilities who participated in 
statewide assessments with the appropriate grades may result in these 
children with disabilities not being included in the accountability 
system and improvement activities may not take these children with 
disabilities into consideration.
    Fragmented data systems and variations in how programs or districts 
are operationalizing the reporting instructions and definitions hinder 
States' capacity both to collect and report valid and reliable data on 
children with disabilities to the Secretary and to the public, which is 
specifically required by IDEA sections 616(b)(2)(B)(i), 
616(b)(2)(C)(ii), and

[[Page 88187]]

618(a), and to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting 
requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Valid and reliable 
data on children with disabilities is crucial for effective program 
planning and evaluation. It allows key parties to make informed 
decisions, allocate resources effectively, and tailor interventions to 
meet the specific needs of students, ultimately leading to improved 
outcomes.
    States have expressed greater desire for TA from the currently 
funded Data Management Center to establish or improve their SLDS, 
exceeding the Center's capacity to serve all of them. Although focused 
TA has been provided to 23 targeted States, 28 more await targeted TA 
to integrate their IDEA Part B data with their SLDS.
    Similarly, improvements are necessary in States' management, 
collection, coordination, reporting, and integration of Part C and Part 
B preschool special education data so that high-quality IDEA Part C and 
Part B preschool special education data required under sections 618 and 
616 of IDEA are reported to the Department. Beginning with the 2023-24 
Part C Exiting data, States will be required to submit all IDEA section 
618 Part C data collections through a new submission system (EDPass). 
In previous years, States have submitted these data through the EDFacts 
Metadata and Process system, which provides onscreen data entry tables 
and fields for reporting the IDEA section 618 data. The EDPass system 
will require States to build data files based on new file 
specifications and upload those files to EDPass. Once uploaded, the 
State will be required to respond to a series of data quality checks to 
ensure the quality of their Part C data being submitted to the 
Department.
    As the process to submit the IDEA Part C data has evolved and 
increased in complexity due to the move to EDPass, more efficient, 
effective, and user-friendly approaches are necessary for conducting 
the early childhood IDEA data collection, reporting, and submission 
processes. Improved data management and coordination processes, as well 
as the increase of linked and integrated child-level data in IDEA Part 
C data systems, IDEA Part B preschool special education data systems, 
early care and education program data systems, and SLDS for school-aged 
children, are key approaches for States in meeting these increased 
expectations around Part C data and Part B section 619 data being 
submitted via EDPass.
    States are strongly encouraged to establish and implement effective 
early childhood data management and, where appropriate, data system 
coordination and integration policies and procedures to support program 
improvement, compliance accountability, and Federal and public 
reporting. Developing interagency agreements and revising policies and 
procedures (that all meet applicable Federal privacy requirements) 
would allow States, where appropriate, to coordinate, link, or 
integrate child-level data in IDEA Part C data systems and IDEA Part B 
preschool special education data systems as an important first step, 
and also potentially with other early care and education program data. 
An ECIDS could help States identify what works best to improve outcomes 
for young children in their States. For instance, an ECIDS can provide 
States with information needed to assess the characteristics of 
services that may be related to better outcomes for children and 
families or the relationship between early childhood settings and early 
childhood outcomes. An ECIDS that includes data across various early 
care and education programs could also improve child find activities in 
the State by identifying potentially underserved populations as well as 
strong referral sources and those where more outreach may be needed. An 
ECIDS could also help States determine the other early care and 
education programs that serve young children with disabilities and 
their families, allowing States to coordinate better with such programs 
and operate early intervention or preschool special education programs 
with a focus on improving outcomes. For example, States are working to 
link their universal screening data to SLDS and ECIDS in order to 
increase early childhood developmental screening rates for young 
children.
    Building robust ECIDSs that include Part C early intervention data 
and Part B preschool special education data would help improve IDEA 
child find and transition data collection, reporting, and analysis, 
improve responses to critical policy questions, facilitate program 
improvement, and improve compliance for IDEA Part C early intervention 
and IDEA Part B preschool special education programs. This level of 
coordination and integration would help ensure that States report high-
quality IDEA data to the Department and the public.
    Though some improvements have been made over the last 10 years in 
linking and integrating IDEA Part C early intervention and IDEA Part B 
preschool special education data to data from early care and education 
programs, K-12 data systems, and the workforce, as well as 
longitudinally over time, the percentage of State programs that report 
they can make these linkages remains low. Less than 40 percent of IDEA 
Part C early intervention and IDEA Part B preschool special education 
programs that responded to a survey \4\ in 2021 reported they can link 
their child-level data to their workforce data. Less than 30 percent of 
IDEA Part C early intervention programs that responded reported that 
their State links IDEA Part C child-level data to Early Head Start, 
Head Start, State Pre-K, child care programs, home visiting programs, 
or other early care or education programs. Most IDEA Part C early 
intervention programs that responded reported they have never linked 
their IDEA Part C data to their IDEA Part B preschool special education 
data. Reasons vary, but the most common reasons include budgetary 
constraints and competing staffing priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Perez, N., & Mercier, B. (2022). 2021 DaSy data systems 
(State of the States) survey findings. SRI International. https://dasycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DaSy_2021DaSyDataSystemsSurveyFindings_Acc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed priority would directly address these capacity-
related challenges, as well as increased expectations and other 
capacity challenges IDEA Part C early intervention and IDEA Part B 
preschool special education programs face with respect to effectively 
and efficiently collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-
quality IDEA data to improve the capacity of States to meet the data 
collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA.
    Proposed Priority:
    The purpose of this proposed 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 determine whether and how to coordinate and integrate 
their IDEA Part B and Part C data required to meet the data collection 
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA into their longitudinal 
data systems (including SLDS and ECIDS) while ensuring applicable IDEA 
and FERPA privacy protections are met. This integration will improve 
the capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-
quality IDEA Part B and Part C 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 and Part C data collection and reporting

[[Page 88188]]

requirements. The Data Management Center's work will comply with the 
privacy and confidentiality protections under IDEA and FERPA. 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 use interagency agreements or 
other mechanisms to coordinate and integrate IDEA Part B and IDEA Part 
C data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their SLDS 
while meeting the applicable privacy requirements under Parts B and C 
of the IDEA and FERPA (which may include developing or disseminating TA 
resources on privacy, interagency agreements on data sharing and/or 
data coordination, and integration);
    (b) Increased use of IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data within States 
by developing products to allow States to report their special 
education, preschool special education, and early intervention data to 
various partners (e.g., other State agencies, policymakers, school and 
early care and education program personnel, local and State school 
boards, local educational agency (LEA) administrators, early care and 
education childhood 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 and IDEA Part C reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA;
    (d) Increased capacity of States to utilize their SLDS and ECIDS to 
collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B and IDEA 
Part C data (including data required under sections 616, 618, and 642 
of IDEA);
    (e) Increased capacity of States to use their SLDS and ECIDS to 
analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children 
with disabilities who receive services under IDEA and under Title I of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 
to improve IDEA and ESEA programs and the outcomes of children with 
disabilities; and
    (f) Increased capacity of States to coordinate and use available 
IDEA Part C early intervention data with IDEA Part B preschool special 
education data (and to integrate or link such data with ECIDS, if 
applicable) to analyze high-quality data on the participation and 
outcomes of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities served 
under IDEA who may also participate in other programs and services 
(e.g., child care, Early Head Start, Head Start, publicly funded 
preschool, and home visiting programs).
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Describe, 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 and IDEA Part C 
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 and IDEA Part C data;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical 
issues and policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B data and IDEA 
Part C collections and EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA Part B 
and IDEA Part C data collections; and
    (iii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of integrating IDEA Part B data within SLDS and IDEA Part C and IDEA 
Part B preschool special education data within ECIDs, and the reporting 
of high-quality IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data to the Department and 
the public.
    (b) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) 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;
    (2) 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 website provides more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/central/Resource/100644.
    (3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \5\ 
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based'' 
means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of 
strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence 
that demonstrates a rationale (as such terms are defined in 34 CFR 
77.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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;
    (4) 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) A plan to provide a range of products and services to--
    (A) Improve States' capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B and 
Part C data required under sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA through 
their SLDS and other applicable data systems; and
    (B) Improve States' capacity to link and integrate (where 
determined appropriate by States) their IDEA Part C early intervention 
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data with data/data systems 
associated with other Federal programs and services that support 
infants, toddlers, and young children and their families in order to 
report high-quality IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special 
education data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The plan 
must include, at a minimum, how the project will--
    (1) In Years 1 through 5--
    (i) Support, in partnership with the Department, 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

[[Page 88189]]

B and Part C data required under sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA;
    (ii) Provide maintenance to support the appropriate functionality 
of the open-source electronic tool 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) and Department-funded 
centers or contractors);
    (iii) Provide TA focused on data governance to facilitate the use 
of the open-source electronic tool and training to State staff to 
implement the open-source electronic tool;
    (iv) Revise the CEDS ``Connections'' to calculate metrics needed to 
report the IDEA Part B and Part C data required under sections 616 and 
618 of IDEA;
    (v) Develop 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 partner 
groups (e.g., LEAs, charter schools, legislative branch, parents);
    (vi) Implement strategies to support the inclusion of other OSEP 
and Department-funded TA centers' products within the open-source 
electronic tool or build connections that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA 
Part B data efficiently into the other TA products;
    (vii) Support a user group of States that are using an open-source 
electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B and Part C data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and
    (viii) Develop products and presentations that include tools and 
solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system 
architecture for reporting the IDEA Part B and Part C data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
    (2) In Years 2 through 5--
    (i) Develop, in partnership with the Department, an open-source 
electronic tool to assist States with linking and integrating their 
IDEA Part C early intervention and IDEA Part B preschool special 
education data with other data/data systems associated with other 
Federal programs and services that support infants, toddlers, and young 
children and their families, in order to provide high-quality reporting 
of the IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special education 
data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; drive program 
improvement; improve results for children with disabilities; and 
improve compliance accountability. The tool must utilize CEDS and meet 
States' needs associated with linking or integrating their Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education data with other 
data/data systems associated with other Federal programs that support 
infants, toddlers, and young children and their families;
    (ii) Develop the CEDS ``Connections'' to ensure the electronic tool 
is built for States to conduct analyses related to reporting the IDEA 
Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special education data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, driving program improvement, 
improving results for children with disabilities and their families, 
and improving compliance accountability;
    (iii) Provide maintenance to support the appropriate functionality 
of the open-source electronic tool as changes are made to data 
reporting requirements and CEDS;
    (iv) Provide TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the 
open-source electronic tool and training to State staff to implement 
the open-source electronic tool; and
    (v) Support a user group of States that are using an open-source 
electronic tool for reporting the IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B 
preschool special education data required under sections 616, 618, and 
642 of IDEA;
    (iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under 
this approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\7\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``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, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those 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
    (C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with 
Department-funded centers (including privacy TA centers such as the 
DaSy Center that provides Department-funded TA on early childhood data 
privacy, and the Privacy Technical Assistance Center) and other 
federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a coordinated TA 
plan when they are involved in a State;
    (v) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\8\ which must 
identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``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 from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, 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 SLDS and IDEA Part C and IDEA 
Part B preschool special education data within ECDIS and to report 
high-quality IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data to the Department and the 
public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site 
consultants to SEAs and Part C lead agencies 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;

[[Page 88190]]

    (5) 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, such 
as non-Federal funds and in-kind contributions, to achieve the intended 
project outcomes; and
    (6) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant 
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to 
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, 
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation or other evidence-building,'' describe how the 
project will develop an evaluation plan in consultation with, and to be 
implemented by, a third-party evaluator.\9\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 must be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii);
    (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 (APR) and at the end of Year 2; 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 the 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) Describe, 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. The applicant 
must--
    (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 three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project periods, provided that, if the meeting 
is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused travel funds 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (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) 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 a new award 
at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
    (6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
targeted and intensive TA to States.
    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)).

[[Page 88191]]

    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    Final Priority
    We will announce the final priority in a document in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering public 
comments on the proposed priority and other information available to 
the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing 
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection 
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this proposed priority, we invite applications 
through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

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, 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 three 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 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 set 
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This proposed 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.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires 
that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the proposed priority only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would 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 would 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.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed priority clearly 
stated?
     Does the proposed priority contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed priority (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
     Would the proposed priority be easier to understand if we 
divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed priority in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed priority easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed priority easier 
to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make the 
proposed priority easier to understand, see the instructions in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    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.

[[Page 88192]]

    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that the proposed priority would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that this 
proposed regulatory action would affect are LEAs, including charter 
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher 
education; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; 
freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal 
organizations; and for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs 
imposed on an applicant by the proposed priority would be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the 
benefits of the proposed priority would outweigh any costs incurred by 
the applicant.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority would 
impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding 
under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an 
eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an 
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the 
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity probably would 
apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs 
of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priority would not impose any 
additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the 
entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the 
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence 
of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an 
application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priority contains information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028. The 
proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data 
collection.
    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. 2024-25862 Filed 11-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P