[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36329-36335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11512]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0134]
Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and
Part C Fiscal Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a funding
priority and requirements under the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number 84.373F. The Department may use this priority and these
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 under Parts B and C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
DATES:
Effective Date: This priority and these requirements are effective
July 16, 2020.
[[Page 36330]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Finch, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6610. 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 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 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 the
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)(1)), where needed,
to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection
requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, 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; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2020 give the Secretary the 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); Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2020, Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2590
(2019).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), and 1442;
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, 132 Stat. 3100 (2018);
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Div. A, Title III of
Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP)
for this program in the Federal Register on December 10, 2019 (84 FR
67395). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for
proposing the priority and requirements.
There are no substantive differences between the proposed priority
and requirements and the final priority and requirements, as discussed
in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation to comment in the
NPP, three parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and
requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly
related to the proposed priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
related to the priority and requirements follows. OSERS received
comments on specific topics including support for the proposed center,
recommendations for the funding of feasibility studies, and enhanced
data collection and reporting. Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed Fiscal
Data Center. The commenter further requested that additional resources
be made available to support the Fiscal Data Center's expanded scope
addressing IDEA Part C fiscal data.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support.
Centers funded under this program provide necessary and valuable
technical assistance to States. The Department will establish a funding
amount that is appropriate based on the outcomes and requirements
outlined in this document.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department support the
implementation of feasibility studies to evaluate strengths and
weaknesses of State fiscal reporting structures to meet the reporting
requirements of IDEA.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment, and notes that
the purpose of the priority is to support States in collecting,
reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their IDEA Parts
B and C fiscal data to establish and meet high expectations for each
child with a disability. Additionally, the Fiscal Data Center will
customize its TA and support to meet each State's specific needs. This
support frequently includes an evaluation of the strengths and
weaknesses of State fiscal structures addressing IDEA fiscal reporting
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department ensure an
accurate count of students with disabilities, account for assistive
technology utilization in classrooms, track student transitions for
both the IDEA Part B and Part C programs, and invest in competitive
integrated employment strategies.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we
believe that the suggestions fall outside of the scope of the Fiscal
Data Center. The commenter requested that the Department expand its
data collection rather than indicating how the Fiscal Data Center can
provide TA to States. We note that under IDEA section 618, the
Department is required to collect from States their IDEA Part B and
Part C annual child count data for infants, toddlers, and children with
disabilities, and that, under IDEA sections 616 and 618, States report
on IDEA Part B and Part C transitions through their exit data as well
as their State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Reports
(APR).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SPP/APR data can be found at https://osep.grads360.org/#program. Section 618 Child Count and Exiting data can be found at
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/collection-documentation/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Final Priority:
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C
Fiscal Data.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to
Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate
IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data Center).
The Fiscal Data Center will provide TA to improve the capacity of
States to meet the IDEA Parts B and C fiscal data
[[Page 36331]]
collection requirements under IDEA section 618 and increase States'
knowledge of the underlying IDEA fiscal requirements and calculations
necessary to submit valid and reliable data for the following
collections: (1) Maintenance of State Financial Support (MFS) in
Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State Application; (2) Local
Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS); (3) Description of Use
of Federal IDEA Part C Funds for the State Lead Agency (LA) and the
Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) in Section III of the IDEA Part
C Annual State Application; and (4) Restricted Indirect Cost Rate/Cost
Allocation Plan Information in Sections III and IV of the IDEA Part C
Annual State Application. States will also receive TA from the Fiscal
Data Center on the underlying fiscal requirements of IDEA related to
these collections and how they impact the States' ability to meet IDEA
fiscal data collection requirements.
Note: The Fiscal Data Center may neither provide TA to States on
negotiating indirect cost rate agreements with their cognizant
Federal agencies nor act as an agent or representative of States in
such negotiations.
The Fiscal Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum,
the following outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data;
(b) Increased State knowledge of underlying statutory and
regulatory fiscal requirements and the calculations necessary to submit
valid and reliable fiscal data under IDEA Part B and Part C;
(c) Improved fiscal infrastructure (e.g., sample interagency
agreements, standard operating procedures and templates) by
coordinating and promoting communication and effective fiscal data
collection and reporting strategies among relevant State offices,
including SEAs, LAs and other State agencies, LEAs, schools, and early
intervention service (EIS) programs or providers;
(d) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely
fiscal data to enhance current State validation procedures to prevent
errors in State-reported IDEA data;
(e) Increased capacity of States to train personnel to meet the
IDEA fiscal data collection and reporting requirements under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA through development of effective tools and
resources (e.g., templates, tools, calculators, and documentation of
State data processes); and providing opportunities for in-person and
virtual cross-State collaboration about IDEA fiscal data collection and
reporting requirements (required under section 618 of IDEA);
(f) Improved capacity of SEAs, LEAs, LAs, and EIS programs or
providers to collect and use IDEA fiscal data to identify issues and
address those issues through monitoring, TA, and stakeholder
involvement; and
(g) Improved IDEA fiscal data validation using results from data
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States and generate
tools that can be used by States to accurately communicate fiscal data
to local consumers (e.g., parents, LEAs, EIS programs or providers, the
general public) and lead to improvements in the validity and
reliability of fiscal data required by 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)).
Final Requirements:
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Requirements:
Applicants must--
(a) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Use knowledge of how SEAs, LAs, LEAs, and EIS programs and
providers are meeting IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and
reporting requirements and the underlying statutory and regulatory
fiscal requirements, as well as knowledge of State and local data
collection systems, as appropriate;
(2) Examine applicable national, State, and local data to determine
the current capacity needs of SEAs, LAs, LEAs, and EIS programs and
providers to meet IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and
reporting requirements;
(3) Train SEAs and LAs on how to use IDEA section 618 fiscal data
as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic
strengths and areas for improvement; and
(4) Disseminate information regarding how SEAs and LAs are
currently meeting IDEA fiscal data collection and reporting
requirements and are using IDEA section 618 data as a means of both
improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas
for improvement.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that 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 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. Include a copy of the conceptual framework
in Appendix A;
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.
[[Page 36332]]
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based
practices (EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by
evidence that demonstrates 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 fiscal data management and data system
integration, and related EBPs; 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
fiscal data management and data system integration and the underlying
fiscal requirements of IDEA;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\3\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\4\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(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; and
(C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-funded centers and
other federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a
coordinated TA plan when such other centers are involved in a State;
and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\5\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges
reporting high-quality IDEA fiscal data to the Department and the
public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site
consultants to the SEA or LA to--
(1) Assess all 57 IDEA Part C programs to determine LA
organizational structure and their capacity to submit valid and
reliable IDEA Part C fiscal data;
(2) Assess all 60 entities that receive IDEA Part B grants to
determine their capacity to submit valid and reliable IDEA Part B
fiscal data;
(3) Identify and document model practices for data management and
data system integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities
within the State;
(4) Develop and adapt tools and provide technical solutions to meet
State-specific data needs; and
(5) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the
data management and data system integration work in the future;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs and LAs
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 levels;
(D) Its proposed plan to prioritize States with the greatest need
for intensive TA to receive products and services;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and LAs 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 fiscal data as well
as fiscal data management and data system integration; and
(G) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with
OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop
and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these 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
[[Page 36333]]
improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine
the proposed logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data
collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the APR; and
(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;
(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:
(i) Its actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee's negotiated
indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant Federal agency; and
(ii) 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. 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 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 at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing
intensive, sustained TA.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
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.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
[[Page 36334]]
as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this regulatory
action is not significant, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do
not apply.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify 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 also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The potential costs associated with this final priority would be
minimal, while the potential benefits are significant. The Department
believes that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs
on eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and
the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action will be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The
potential benefits of implementing the program--including improved
capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality fiscal
data--would outweigh the costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of
carrying out activities associated with the application will be paid
for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the
costs of implementation will not be excessively burdensome for eligible
applicants, including small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority and requirements contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006; the final priority and requirements do not affect the currently
approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing
a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are 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
final priority and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this final
priority and these final requirements will outweigh any costs incurred
by the applicant.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and
requirements will 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 final priority and requirements will not impose
any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the
entity would face in the absence of the final action. That is, the
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence
of the final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application will likely be the same.
This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a
[[Page 36335]]
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 program 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,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration. Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-11512 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P