[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45346-45350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[CFDA Number: 84.373M.]


Final Priority; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--
IDEA Data Management Center

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

ACTION: Final priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education 
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) announces a priority under the 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Assistant 
Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2014 and later years. We take this action to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center 
(Center) that will provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

DATES: This priority is effective September 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4071, Potomac Center Plaza 
(PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-6028 or by 
email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The purpose of the 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the 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 
funds appropriated under Part B of the IDEA to provide TA activities 
authorized under section 616(i) of IDEA. 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 IDEA section 616 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 under IDEA Parts B and 
C, which include the data collection requirements in IDEA sections 616 
and 618.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), and 
1442.

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
    We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in 
the Federal Register on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21663). That notice 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing this 
particular priority. Except for minor editorial and technical revisions 
(noted below), there are no differences between the proposed priority 
and this final priority. We made these minor technical revisions:
    (a) Clarified the types of supports and TA the Center must provide 
when assisting States in the use of the open source tools developed, as 
described in subsection (b) of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination Activities section of this priority;
    (b) Added the Center on Systemic Improvement (CSI) (if funded) \1\ 
to the list of Department-funded projects that the Center must 
communicate and collaborate with on an ongoing basis, as described in 
subsection (a) of the Coordination Activities section of this priority;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For additional information regarding CSI, see: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-17/pdf/2014-14154.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Added application requirement (b)(4)(ii), which requires 
applicants to demonstrate how the Center will support State staff in 
taking a leadership role in restructuring and aligning data systems 
within States that are receiving TA from the Center; and
    (d) Revised application requirement (f)(4)(ii), which requires 
applicants to budget for a two and one-half day project directors' 
meeting in Washington, DC, to occur every other year beginning with the 
meeting scheduled for Summer, 2016.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of 
proposed priority, three parties submitted comments on the proposed 
priority.
    We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes, or comments not directly 
related to the proposed priority.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of 
proposed priority follows.
    Comment: Three commenters indicated there was overlap between the 
Center's activities and the activities of the IDEA Data Center (IDC) 
and the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy).
    Discussion: We do not agree that there is overlap between the 
Center's activities and the activities of IDC and DaSy. The Center will 
focus on: (1) Providing TA to States to improve their data management 
procedures and data systems architecture to build data files and 
reports to improve States' capacity to meet the Part B reporting 
requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and (2) improving 
States' capacity to work with source systems (e.g., statewide 
longitudinal data systems (SLDS)) to report high-quality data as 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The other data centers 
(IDC and DaSY) funded by the Office of Special Education Programs 
(OSEP) do not address the need to assist States in restructuring their 
existing, often fragmented, data systems and in aligning their data 
collection for students with disabilities with their data collection 
for the general student population in the SLDS so that States can 
improve the validity and reliability of the data they report to the 
Secretary and the public as required under section 616 and 618 of IDEA. 
The IDC is focused on assisting States with developing necessary data 
validation

[[Page 45347]]

processes and procedures to ensure high-quality data submissions to 
OSEP, but does not work on data management or system architecture. DaSy 
provides TA to States to support Part C and Part B State preschool 
programs' participation in the development or enhancement of integrated 
early childhood data systems. Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters stressed the importance of including 
general education staff in efforts to restructure and align data 
systems within the State; and one commenter indicated that States, 
rather than an OSEP-funded center, should take the lead in these 
efforts.
    Discussion: We agree it is important to include general education 
staff in the restructuring and alignment of data systems within the 
State. For this reason, we are requiring the Center to collaborate and 
coordinate with the State SLDS programs. Additionally, we are requiring 
the Center to use the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) that the 
Department has coordinated the development of in collaboration with 
States and local school districts. We anticipate that this Center will 
help special education staff engage and work with the general education 
and SLDS staff within their States to reach the goal of using SLDS to 
report high-quality IDEA data. We also agree that States can and should 
lead these efforts and have revised the priority to clarify their role.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of the application 
requirements of the priority to require that applicants describe how 
the Center will support State staff in taking a leadership role in 
restructuring and aligning data systems within the States that are 
receiving TA from the Center.
    Comment: Two commenters noted the significant effort and time a 
State would need to invest in order to appropriately use an open source 
tool. These commenters noted that States would need to transfer data 
into a data store from which an EDFacts file could be created with the 
open source tool. They stressed that each State would need to get its 
data into a uniform file structure in order for the generic code to 
create the EDFacts files. In addition, these commenters questioned 
whether the open source tool would be worth the amount of time and 
money it would take to create it.
    Discussion: We anticipate that the Center will provide TA on 
preparing State data for use with open source tools and that this 
assistance will be highly valued by many States and, therefore, an 
excellent use of Federal funds. State utilization of the open source 
tools will be on a voluntary basis.
    We expect that the open source tools will be based on CEDS. CEDS 
will provide a common vocabulary and data model for all States to use 
in order to make the open source tools accessible. The Center will 
assist States in mapping their data systems to CEDS in order to use the 
open source tool. We have revised the priority to clarify that the 
Center must provide this assistance.
    Changes: In paragraph (b)(3) of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination Activities section of the priority, we have added, as a 
required activity, that the Center assist States in preparing their 
data for use of the open source tools that are developed under this 
priority.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center work with CSI to 
provide TA to States on using the data systems developed or refined by 
the proposed Center's work in the development of their State Systemic 
Improvement Plans (SSIP).
    Discussion: We agree that the IDEA Data Management Center should 
collaborate and coordinate with CSI (if funded) to further promote the 
use of high-quality IDEA data.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to include CSI in the list of 
Department-funded projects that the Center will communicate and 
collaborate with on an ongoing basis.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center work with the 
Department to integrate and align the various reporting systems as a 
way to improve the overall quality of the data and facilitate use of 
the data.
    Discussion: We understand the commenter's suggestion. Neither the 
Department nor the Center can revise the data that States must submit 
to the Department under different statutes (e.g., sections 616 and 618 
of IDEA and under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). However, 
under this priority, the Department has the authority, under section 
616(i)(2) of IDEA, to provide TA (from funds reserved under section 
611(c) from FY 2013) to improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA 
Part B and Part C data collection requirements. Thus, the Center will 
assist the Department by helping States directly integrate and align 
State-level data reporting systems as a way to improve the overall 
quality of the data and facilitate use of the data that is reported to 
the Department and used by the public.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority:
    IDEA Data Management Center.
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (Center) to 
achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes: (a) Improve 
States' data management procedures and data systems architecture to 
build data files and reports to improve States' capacity to meet the 
Part B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and 
(b) improve States' capacity to utilize their SLDS to report high-
quality data under IDEA Part B as required under sections 616 and 618 
of IDEA. The Center's work will comply with the privacy and 
confidentiality protections in the Family Educational Rights and 
Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA and will not provide the Department with 
access to child-level data.
    Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the 
IDEA Data Management Center, at a minimum, must:
    Knowledge Development Activities in Year One.
    (a) Document the methods of collecting, processing, and reporting 
the IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data for the 60 State educational 
agencies (SEAs). The documentation must align the data used by the 
States to meet the Part B IDEA data to the Common Education Data 
Standards (CEDS).
    (b) Analyze the methods of collecting, processing, and reporting 
the Part B IDEA data for commonalities and challenges and identify 
States in need of intensive or targeted TA.
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities.
    (a) Provide intensive TA \2\ to at least 10 States to improve their 
ability to utilize SLDS as sources for reporting Part B data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The Center must use information 
obtained through the activities described under paragraph (a) of the 
Knowledge Development Activities in Year One section of this priority 
to inform the intensive TA, which must be focused on States that are 
not using their SLDS to report their IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``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.

    Note:  Applicants must describe the methods and criteria they 
will use to recruit and select States for intensive TA. The Center

[[Page 45348]]

must obtain approval from OSEP on the final selection of intensive 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TA States.

    (b) Provide a range of targeted and general TA products and 
services for improving States' capacity to report high-quality Part B 
data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Such TA must include, 
at a minimum:
    (1) Working with the Department to develop open source electronic 
tools to assist States in building EDFacts data files and reports that 
can be submitted to the Department and made available to the public. 
The tools must utilize CEDS and meet all States' and entities' needs 
associated with reporting the Part B data required under sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA;
    (2) Developing a plan to maintain the appropriate functionality of 
the open source electronic tools described in paragraph (1) as changes 
are made to data collections, reporting requirements, file 
specifications, and CEDS;
    (3) Assisting States in preparing their data in order to use the 
open source electronic tools (e.g., transforming data into a data 
store);
    (4) Conducting training with State staff to use the open source 
electronic tools;
    (5) Developing CEDS ``Connections'' \3\ to calculate metrics needed 
to report the Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more information on CEDS Connections, see: https://ceds.ed.gov/connect.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Developing white papers and presentations that include tools 
and solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data 
system architecture for reporting the Part B data required under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.
    Coordination Activities.
    (a) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States, such as IDC, DaSy, the CEDS initiative, the SLDS 
program, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, and CSI (if funded); 
and
    (b) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP project officer.
    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. OSEP encourages 
innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, and 
accurately reporting valid and reliable IDEA data on State data 
management procedures and data systems architecture and in building 
EDFacts data files and reports for timely and accurate reporting of the 
IDEA data to the Department and the public. To meet this requirement 
the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections and EDFacts file 
specifications for the IDEA data collection; and
    (ii) Present information about the difficulties that States have 
encountered in the collection and submission of valid and reliable IDEA 
data;
    (2) Result in improved IDEA data collection and reporting.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Achieve the project's goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. 
To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its 
intended outcomes;
    (2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and 
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, 
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed 
relationships or linkages among them, and any empirical support for 
this framework;
    (3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) The current research on the effectiveness of IDEA data 
collection strategies, data management procedures, and data systems 
architectures;
    (ii) How the current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research 
and evidence-based practices 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 will develop knowledge of States' data management 
processes and data systems architecture;
    (ii) How it will facilitate and support the leadership role State 
staff will take in improving States' data management procedures and 
data systems architecture;
    (iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA \4\ for the 60 
SEAs;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``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 Web site 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,\5\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA service 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 of 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 educational agency (LEA) level, as appropriate;
    (v) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must 
identify--
    (A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs to 
work with the proposed project including the SEAs' commitment to the 
initiative, fit of the initiatives, current infrastructure, available 
resources, and ability to build capacity at the LEA level, as 
appropriate; and
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build training systems 
that include professional development based on adult learning 
principles and coaching.
    (5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the 
project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration.

[[Page 45349]]

    (c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Evaluation Plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will collect and analyze data on specific 
and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project. 
To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its--
    (i) Proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data 
collection methods, and analyses; and
    (ii) Proposed standards of effectiveness;
    (2) The proposed project will use the evaluation results to examine 
the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward 
achieving the intended outcomes; and
    (3) The methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project achieved the 
intended outcomes.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits.
    (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) How 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; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, 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 of the application a logic model that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of 
the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will 
achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the 
formative and summative evaluations of the project.

    Note:  The following Web sites provide more information on logic 
models: www.researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_resource3c.html and www.tadnet.org/pages/589;

    (2) Include in Appendix A of the application a conceptual framework 
for the project;
    (3) Include in Appendix A of the application person-loading charts 
and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan 
described in the narrative;
    (4) Include in the proposed budget funding for 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' meeting in 
Washington, DC, to occur every other year beginning with the meeting 
scheduled for Summer, 2016;
    (iii) Two annual two-day trips for Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during 
the last half of the second year of the project period;
    (5) 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 OSEP.

    Note: 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; and

    (6) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility.
    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 notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 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 defines a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);

[[Page 45350]]

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    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 this final priority only on a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its 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 have also 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 both 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.
    An IDEA Data Management Center funded under the priority 
established by this regulatory action will assist States in complying 
with Federal laws and regulations. Without this regulatory action, the 
burden of improving State capacity to collect, report, and analyze IDEA 
data would fall solely on the responsible State and local entities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: July 31, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-18481 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P