[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61585-61591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0025]


Proposed Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--IDEA Data Management Center

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.373M.]

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

ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The mission of the Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood, 
educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all 
people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the 
Nation. As such, the Department of Education (Department) proposes a 
funding priority and requirements under the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program. The Department may use the proposed 
priority and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and 
later years. We take this action to focus attention on an identified 
national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Data 
Management Center would help States in collecting, reporting, and 
determining how to best analyze and use their data to establish and 
meet high expectations for each child with a disability by enhancing, 
streamlining, and integrating their IDEA Part B data into their State 
longitudinal data systems and would customize its TA to meet each 
State's specific needs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do 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 ``How to use Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and 
requirements, address them to Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5141, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all 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: Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5141, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6028. 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: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority and 
requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of 
the proposed priority or requirement that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priority or any of the proposed requirements would be 
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed 
priority or requirements could be revised to address potential 
challenges and reduce burden.
    Directed Question: The Department seeks input on whether the 
establishment of two centers (i.e., one Center addressing the needs of 
Developed Capacity States, and another Center addressing the needs of 
Developing Capacity States) \1\ would be an efficient and effective 
approach to meeting the diverse needs of States in integrating, 
reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part B data. The 
Secretary specifically invites comments on the potential impact of 
having two centers on the ease and efficiency of accessing TA services 
proposed in this notice, the differing levels of expertise needed to 
effectively deliver TA services to the two different groups of States, 
and the types of products that the two groups of States would need to 
achieve the outcomes proposed in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Developed Capacity States'' are defined as States that can 
demonstrate that their data systems include linkages between special 
education data and other early childhood and K-12 data. Projects 
funded under this focus area would focus on helping such States 
utilize those existing linkages to report, analyze, and use IDEA 
Part B data.
    ``Developing Capacity States'' are defined as States that have a 
data system that does not include linkages between special education 
data and other early childhood and K-12 data. Projects funded under 
this focus area would focus on helping such States develop those 
linkages to allow for more accurate and efficient reporting, 
analysis, and use of IDEA Part B data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from this proposed priority and these proposed requirements. 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 all public 
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 
5010B, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
    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 documents in the 
public rulemaking record for the proposed priority and requirements. 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.

[[Page 61586]]

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary the authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of 
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide 
TA activities authorized under section 616(i), where needed, to improve 
the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting 
requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the 
Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is 
$25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 
616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and 
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information 
determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are 
collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also 
requires the Secretary to provide TA (from funds reserved under section 
611(c)), where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection requirements, which include the data collection and 
reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Additionally, 
the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2019 gives the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 
611(c) to ``administer and carry out other services and activities to 
improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B 
and C of the IDEA.'' Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2019; Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115-245; 132 
Stat. 3100 (2018).
    To help ensure this program meets State needs, we invited the 
public to provide input on the Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection program from April 24, 2018, through May 24, 2018, on the 
ED.gov OSERS Blog.\2\ In response to this invitation, we received 63 
relevant responses, all of which we considered in our development of 
this document. Sixty-two supported our continuing to fund TA centers; 
only one supported one of the other options we presented, specifically, 
to invite State educational agencies (SEAs) and State lead agencies 
(LAs) to directly apply for funds reserved under section 611(c) to 
purchase TA to improve their capacity to meet their IDEA Part B and 
Part C data collection requirements. A few commenters noted some 
concerns regarding overlap between centers and a need for cross-State 
collaboration. We addressed these concerns in the proposed priority by 
including a requirement for the center to offer cross-State TA 
collaboration opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2018/04/use-of-part-b-program-funds-for-technical-assistance-to-states-on-idea-data-collection/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442, and 
the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2019; Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115-245, Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2019; 132 Stat. 3100 (2018).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following priority for this 
program. We may apply this proposed priority in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    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 data (including IDEA section 618 Part 
B data and section 616 Part B data) by enhancing, streamlining, and 
integrating their IDEA Part B data into the State's longitudinal data 
systems.\3\ The Data Management Center's work will comply with the 
privacy and confidentiality protections in the Family Educational 
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA and will not provide the 
Department with access to child-level data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A State's longitudinal data system is a State-managed 
repository of longitudinal, linked, unit record data with 
connections across programs and sectors to support a comprehensive, 
integrated view of students, schools, and programs, and may also 
refer to other statewide data systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority of States have State longitudinal data systems, but, 
until recently, very few of those systems integrated IDEA Part B data, 
a complex issue. Specifically, in the IDEA State Supplemental Survey in 
school year (SY) 2015-16, only 18 of 60 Part B reporting entities 
responded that all their special education data was in their statewide 
longitudinal data system, rising to 23 Part B reporting entities in SY 
2018-19. Therefore, many Part B reporting entities are still not 
integrating their IDEA Part B data with their States' longitudinal data 
systems. This lack of integration reduces States' ability both to make 
full use of their data and to meet changing reporting needs. States are 
seeing the value of integrating IDEA Part B data into their State 
longitudinal data systems. Doing so allows States to standardize data 
collected across programs, assists in meeting Federal reporting 
requirements, provides additional information on the participation in 
other programs by children with disabilities, and supports program 
improvement.
    Currently, most students with disabilities are educated in the same 
settings as students without disabilities; 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 State 
longitudinal data systems. At the same time, various programs, 
districts, and SEAs are using different collection processes to gather 
data for their required data submissions, resulting in different 
degrees of reliability in the data collected.
    These situations hinder the 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 618(a), and to meet 
IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements under sections 
616 and 618 of IDEA.
    States with fragmented data systems are also more likely to have 
missing or duplicate data. For example, if a State collects and 
maintains data on disciplinary removals of students with disabilities 
in a special education data system but maintains data on the 
demographics of all students 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.
    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 students with 
disabilities participate is housed in one database and the grade in 
which students are enrolled is housed in another, the State may not be 
able to

[[Page 61587]]

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.
    Finally, the demand from States for support from the currently 
funded Data Management Center to assist them in integrating their IDEA 
Part B data within the States' longitudinal data system far exceeds the 
number of States that could be served by the current center. Ten States 
have received support from the current center while 28 additional 
States have indicated interest in integrating their IDEA Part B data 
with their States' longitudinal data systems. In addition to the 
interest in integrating data, about 10 percent of States reported to 
the National Center for Education Statistics through the State 
longitudinal data program that they do not yet have non-EDFacts special 
education reporting and are interested in, or are working towards, this 
functionality. About one-third of States reported that they do not yet 
have IDEA Part B data integrated into their systems and are interested 
in or are working on developing this functionality.
    In addition, we propose for this priority to include an indirect 
cost cap that is the lesser of the grantee's actual indirect costs as 
determined by the grantee's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement 
with its cognizant Federal agency and 40 percent of the grantee's 
modified total direct cost (MTDC) base. We believe this cap is 
appropriate as it maximizes the availability of funds for the primary 
TA purposes of this priority, which is to improve the capacity of 
States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under 
Part B of IDEA and to ultimately benefit programs serving children with 
disabilities. The Department has done an analysis of the indirect cost 
rates for all current technical assistance centers funded under the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination and Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection programs as well as other grantees that are 
large, midsize, and small businesses and small nonprofit organizations 
and has found that, in general, total indirect costs charged on these 
grants by these entities were at or below 35 percent of total direct 
costs (TDC). We recognize that, dependent on the structure of the 
investment and activities, the MTDC base could be much smaller than the 
TDC, which would imply a higher indirect cost rate than those 
calculated here. The Department arrived at a 40 percent rate to address 
some of that variation. This would account for a 12 percent variance 
between TDC and MTDC. However, we note that, in the absence of a cap, 
certain entities would likely charge indirect cost rates in excess of 
40 percent of MTDC. Based on our analysis, it appears that those 
entities would likely be for-profit and nonprofit organizations, but 
these organizations appear to be outliers when compared to the majority 
of other large businesses as well as the entirety of OSEP's grantees. 
Setting an indirect cost rate cap of 40 percent would be in line with 
the majority of applicants' existing negotiated rates with the 
cognizant Federal agency.
    This proposed priority aligns with two priorities from the 
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for 
Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on 
March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096): Priority 2: Promoting Innovation and 
Efficiency, Streamlining Education With an Increased Focus on Improving 
Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to Students and 
Taxpayers; and Priority 5: Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and 
Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents.
    Projects must be operated in a manner consistent with 
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and 
the Federal civil rights laws.

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 integrate their IDEA Part B data required to meet the 
data collection requirements in section 616 and section 618 of IDEA, 
including information collected through the IDEA State Supplemental 
Survey, into their longitudinal data systems. This will improve the 
capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality 
IDEA Part B data to establish and meet high expectations for each child 
with a disability. The Data Management Center will help States address 
challenges with data management procedures and data systems 
architecture and better meet current and future IDEA Part B data 
collection and reporting requirements. The Data Management Center's 
work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality protections in 
FERPA and IDEA and will not provide the Department with access to 
child-level data.
    The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a 
minimum, the following expected outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of States to integrate IDEA Part B data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal 
data systems;
    (b) Increased use of IDEA Part B data within States by developing 
products to allow States to report their special education data to 
various stakeholders through their longitudinal data systems;
    (c) Increased number of States that use data governance and data 
management procedures to increase their capacity to meet the IDEA Part 
B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
    (d) Increased capacity of States to utilize their State 
longitudinal data systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-
quality IDEA Part B data (including data required under sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA); and
    (e) Increased capacity of States to use their State longitudinal 
data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and 
outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs 
(e.g., IDEA, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended (ESEA)) in order to improve IDEA programs and the 
outcomes of children with disabilities.
    In addition, the Data Management Center must provide a range of 
targeted and general TA products and services for improving States' 
capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B data required under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA through their State longitudinal data 
systems. Such TA should include, at a minimum--
    (a) In partnership with the Department, supporting, as needed, the 
implementation of an existing open source electronic tool to assist 
States in building EDFacts data files and reports that can be submitted 
to the Department and made available to the public. The tool will 
utilize Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all States' 
needs associated with reporting the IDEA Part B data required under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
    (b) Developing and implementing a plan to maintain the appropriate 
functionality of the open source electronic tool described in paragraph 
(a) as changes are made to data collections, reporting requirements, 
file specifications, and CEDS (such as links within the system to allow 
TA products developed by other Office of Special Education Programs 
(OSEP)/Department-funded centers or contractors);
    (c) Conducting TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the 
open source electronic tool and providing training to

[[Page 61588]]

State staff to implement the open source electronic tool;
    (d) Revising CEDS ``Connections'' \4\ to calculate metrics needed 
to report the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Connection is a way of showing which CEDS data elements 
might be necessary for answering a data question. For users who have 
aligned their data systems to CEDS, States will be able to utilize 
these Connections via the Connect tool to see which data elements, 
in their own systems, would be needed to answer any data question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Identifying other outputs (e.g., reports, Application 
Programming Interface, new innovations) of an open source electronic 
tool that can support reporting by States of IDEA Part B data to 
different stakeholder groups (e.g., local educational agencies (LEAs), 
legislative branch, parents);
    (f) Supporting the inclusion of other OSEP/Department-funded TA 
centers' products within the open source electronic tool or building 
connections that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part B data efficiently 
into the other TA products;
    (g) Supporting a user group of States that are using an open source 
electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under sections 
616 and 618 of IDEA; and
    (h) Developing products and presentations that include tools and 
solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system 
architecture for reporting the IDEA Part B data required under sections 
616 and 618 of IDEA.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Proposed Requirements

    In addition to the programmatic requirements contained in the 
proposed priority, we propose that, to be considered for funding, 
applicants must meet the following requirements.

Proposed Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirements for 
this program. We may apply one or more of these proposed requirements 
in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Applicants must--
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges associated with State data management 
procedures, data systems architecture, and building EDFacts data files 
and reports for timely reporting of the IDEA Part B data to the 
Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant 
must--
    (i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating 
the difficulties that States have encountered in the collection and 
submission of valid and reliable IDEA Part B data;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical 
issues and policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B data collections 
and EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA Part B data collections; 
and
    (iii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data systems 
and the reporting of high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department 
and the public.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;

    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices (EBPs).\5\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based 
practices'' means practices that, at a minimum, demonstrate a 
rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component 
included in the project's logic model is informed by research or 
evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to 
improve relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on data collection strategies, data 
management procedures, and data systems architecture; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on 
States' data management processes and data systems architecture;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the 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.

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

[[Page 61589]]

    (iii) 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 under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the State and local levels;
    (C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a 
primary focus on meeting the needs of Developing Capacity States; and
    (D) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with 
other OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to 
develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a 
State; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\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, which must be Developing Capacity 
States, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive 
the products and services under this approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to address Developing Capacity States' 
challenges associated with integrating IDEA Part B data within State 
longitudinal data systems and to report high-quality IDEA Part B data 
to the Department and the public, which should, at a minimum, include 
providing on-site consultants to SEAs to--
    (1) Model and document data management and data system integration 
policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the Developing 
Capacity State;
    (2) Support the Developing Capacity 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 Developing Capacity State 
to maintain the data management and data system integration work in the 
future; and
    (4) Support the Developing Capacity State's cybersecurity plan in 
collaboration, to the extent appropriate, with the Department's Privacy 
Technical Assistance Center;
    (C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs to 
work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the State and 
local district levels;
    (D) Its proposed plan to prioritize Developing Capacity States with 
the greatest need for intensive TA to receive products and services;
    (E) Its proposed plan for assisting Developing Capacity State LAs 
and SEAs to build or enhance training systems that include professional 
development based on adult learning principles and coaching;
    (F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, local 
programs, families) to ensure that there is communication between each 
level and that there are systems in place to support the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part B data, as well 
as State data management procedures and data systems architecture for 
building EDFacts data files and reports for timely reporting of the 
IDEA Part B data to the Department and the public; and
    (G) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate and 
coordinate with other OSEP-funded centers and other Department-funded 
TA investments, such as the Institute of Education Sciences/National 
Center for Education Statistics research and development investments, 
where appropriate, to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan; and
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (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.\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 should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the State Performance 
Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) and at the end of Year 2 for 
the review process; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

[[Page 61590]]

    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities;
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and how funds will be spent in a way 
that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes; and
    (5) The applicant will ensure that it will recover the lesser of: 
(A) Its actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee's negotiated 
indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant Federal agency; and (B) 
40 percent of its modified total direct cost (MTDC) base as defined in 
2 CFR 200.68.

    Note:  The MTDC is different from the total amount of the grant. 
Additionally, the MTDC is not the same as calculating a percentage 
of each or a specific expenditure category. If the grantee is 
billing based on the MTDC base, the grantee must make its MTDC 
documentation available to the program office and the Department's 
Indirect Cost Unit. If a grantee's allocable indirect costs exceed 
40 percent of its MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, the grantee may 
not recoup the excess by shifting the cost to other grants or 
contracts with the U.S. Government, unless specifically authorized 
by legislation. The grantee must use non-Federal revenue sources to 
pay for such unrecovered costs.

    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note:  Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility;
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
    (6) Budget to provide intensive, sustained TA to at least 25 
States.

Final Priority and Requirements

    We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and 
requirements after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the Department. 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 proposed priority and one or more of 
these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a 
rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department 
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that 
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new rule must be fully offset by the elimination of existing 
costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does 
not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income transfers 
between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding 
discretionary grant programs. Because the proposed priority and 
requirements would be utilized in connection with a discretionary grant 
program, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
    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. To the extent

[[Page 61591]]

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 and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We 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.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' 
as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below 
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small 
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), 
with a population of less than 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs 
under State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); other public 
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and 
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the 
proposed priority and requirements would be limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this 
proposed priority and these proposed requirements 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 and 
requirements 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 
would probably apply only if it determines that the likely benefits 
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priority and requirements 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 small eligible 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.
    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. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Mark Schultz,
Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-24640 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P