[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41379-41387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14073]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0025; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
(CFDA) Number: 84.373M.]


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

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

ACTION: Final priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority 
and requirements under the Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection Program. 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 of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA Data Management Center 
(Data Management Center) will assist States in collecting, reporting, 
and determining how to best analyze and use their 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 will customize its TA to meet each 
State's specific needs.

DATES: This priority and these requirements are effective August 10, 
2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bae, U.S. Department of Education, 
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, 
DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-8272. 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 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; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 give 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). 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), 1442; the 
Department

[[Page 41380]]

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); and 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 November 13, 2019 (84 FR 
61585). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for 
proposing the particular priority and requirements.
    There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final 
priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section of this document. The only substantive 
changes provide examples of potential stakeholders.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation to comment in the 
NPP, 18 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 and 
changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP 
follows. OSERS received comments on several specific topics, including 
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) 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. Each topic is addressed below.

General Comments

    Comments: All commenters expressed overall support for the proposed 
Data Management Center, and a number of commenters noted the positive 
impact of the valuable TA they received from centers previously funded 
under this program.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with 
the commenters. Centers funded under this program provide necessary and 
valuable TA to the States.
    Changes: None.

Providing TA to Developing and Developed Capacity States

    Comments: In response to our directed question about whether to 
establish two centers, the majority of the commenters did not support 
establishing two data management centers (i.e., one center addressing 
the needs of Developed Capacity States, and another center addressing 
the needs of Developing Capacity States). These commenters noted that 
creating two data management centers would (1) generate unnecessary 
redundancies and result in inefficient use of Federal TA resources; (2) 
make it difficult for States to learn valuable lessons regarding the 
integration of IDEA data into State longitudinal data systems from 
their colleagues; and (3) create confusion regarding the scope of the 
centers and which States would be served by which of the two data 
management centers. The commenters noted that one data management 
center would be able to support both the Developed Capacity States and 
Developing Capacity States through systematic planning.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that establishing two data 
management centers would generate unnecessary redundancies, be an 
inefficient use of resources, make it difficult for States to learn 
from each other, and create confusion over the individual scopes of the 
centers and which States would be served by which of the two data 
management centers. Therefore, we have not incorporated the two-center 
structure into the final priority and requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter was supportive of establishing two data 
management centers and suggested that one center focus on the technical 
capacity of States to collect, access, and appropriately share high-
quality, timely data and the other center focus on the human capacity 
to more effectively analyze, access, and apply data in efforts to 
improve policy, programs, placement, and instructional practice.
    Discussion: The Department believes that building a State's 
technical capacity and human capacity to integrate IDEA data into State 
longitudinal data systems are both necessary components to achieving 
the outcomes of this priority. However, we believe that the TA on these 
components needs to be provided in a coordinated fashion that allows 
data governance principles to guide the data integration work. We have 
concluded that separating the TA provided on these components between 
two centers would result in a disjointed and fragmented approach to 
data integration and a less efficient and effective manner to achieving 
the outcomes of this priority. Therefore, we have not incorporated the 
two-center structure into the final priority and requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Another commenter was supportive of establishing two data 
management centers and argued that the Department should provide 
examples of the types of TA that each of the data management centers 
would provide in order to delineate the distinct roles and 
responsibilities of each center and help States identify their needs 
and capacity in this area.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we 
have concluded that establishing two data management centers to meet 
the needs of States in integrating, reporting, analyzing, and using 
high-quality IDEA Part B data would result in overlapping scopes, 
redundancy of TA products and services, and an inability for States to 
learn from their colleagues in the areas of data management and 
integration. The Department believes that one data management center 
will be an efficient and effective approach to meeting the needs of 
Developing Capacity States and Developed Capacity States.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters noted that States cannot easily be 
categorized into Developed or Developing Capacity States. They argued 
that data management and integration activities exist on a dynamic and 
ever-changing continuum and that States may have some of their IDEA 
data linked or integrated into the State longitudinal data system while 
other IDEA data are not linked or integrated. Additionally, they argued 
States may move back and forth between these two groups as situations 
and support for data management and integration work within States 
changes over time.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that data management and 
integration activities exist on a continuum; however, we believe it is 
important to focus intensive, sustained TA on Developing Capacity 
States. We recognize that a State's status as a Developing Capacity 
State may change, and that the intensive, sustained TA will shift along 
with a State's status, including whether that status is based on a 
portion of a State's data linkages. We continue to believe that the 
Data Management Center should prioritize those States that present as 
Developing Capacity States.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 41381]]

Including IDEA Part C Early Intervention and Part B Preschool Special 
Education Data

    Comments: A number of commenters supported including IDEA Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data in the 
scope of the Data Management Center. These commenters noted that States 
are currently using these data to enhance their ability to answer 
critical questions that help evaluate and improve early childhood 
programs and services. Additionally, they discussed the value of 
linking data across sources both vertically (birth to 21 years and 
beyond) as well as horizontally (across programs such as IDEA, Head 
Start, pre-kindergarten (pre-k), child care, child welfare, health, 
Title I, etc.) to provide powerful information about the value of these 
programs as they work to improve outcomes for children and families.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that the Data Management Center 
should support building State capacity to integrate IDEA Part B data, 
including the Part B preschool special education data, as required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, within their longitudinal data 
systems. All references to IDEA Part B data throughout the priority are 
inclusive of the Part B preschool special education data.
    Additionally, the Department agrees with the value of linking IDEA 
Part C early intervention data vertically and horizontally to data and 
data systems used to support other early childhood and school age 
programs (e.g., IDEA, Head Start, pre-k, child care, child welfare, 
health, Title I). Such linkages must appropriately address the 
applicable privacy and confidentiality requirements under IDEA Part C, 
Head Start, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
    The Department currently funds the Center for IDEA Early Childhood 
Data Systems (CFDA number 84.373Z). That center focuses on early 
childhood data issues, including the unique privacy and confidentiality 
requirements applicable to IDEA Part C, which are not the focus of this 
center. By contrast, the preschool special education data are subject 
to the same requirements as the school-aged special education data 
under both IDEA Part B and FERPA.
    Therefore, the Department believes that including the IDEA Part C 
early intervention data in this priority would create unnecessary 
overlap in the scope of the two centers and potential duplication of TA 
products and services, specifically as it relates to issues of privacy 
and confidentiality.
    Changes: None.

Expanding the Types and Roles of Stakeholders

    Comments: A few commenters recommended specifying the following 
stakeholders in outcome (b): Parents, advocates, policymakers, school 
personnel, local and State school boards, researchers, charter school 
authorizers, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that broad stakeholder 
involvement is very important to the success of a center. We are 
revising the priority to include examples of potential stakeholders for 
States to consider when developing products to report their special 
education data.
    Changes: We have revised outcome (b) to include the following 
examples of stakeholders: Policymakers, school personnel, local and 
State school boards, local educational agency (LEA) administrators, 
researchers, charter school authorizers, parents and advocates, and 
Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
    Comments: A few commenters requested that we require the Data 
Management Center to establish an advisory group comprised primarily of 
State data managers who can help determine needs and focus priorities 
of the Data Management Center.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we do 
not believe an advisory board is necessary and anticipate that the Data 
Management Center will engage established data groups, made up, for 
example, of State data managers, to determine the needs and focus 
priorities of the Data Management Center. Further, this center will be 
required to support 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, as noted in paragraph (g) of the TA 
requirements. We anticipate that this user group will provide 
additional feedback and direction on the functionality of the center's 
open source electronic tool.
    Changes: None.

TA Needs of States

    Comments: Some commenters argued that we should require the Data 
Management Center to offer differing levels of expertise and services 
based on the various needs of the States.
    Discussion: The Department agrees. The Data Management Center will 
provide three levels of TA associated with 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: (1) 
Intensive, sustained TA; (2) targeted, specialized TA; and (3) 
universal, general TA. Because this requirement is already incorporated 
into requirement (b)(5)(iii)(C), no changes are necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters requested that we clarify how the TA 
needs of States are identified and the center will meet the needs of 
charter schools that are public schools within an LEA and charter 
schools that operate as their own LEA.
    Discussion: Applicants under this priority will be required to 
describe how they will identify the TA needs of States. This priority 
does not require a specific approach to identifying the State TA needs. 
However, the Department agrees that charter schools should be 
identified as a stakeholder group when the center is identifying 
outputs (e.g., reports, Application Programming Interface, new 
innovations) of an open source electronic tool.
    Changes: We have revised TA requirement (e) pertaining to targeted 
and general TA products and services to include charter schools as an 
example of stakeholders States should consider when identifying outputs 
generated by the Data Management Center's open source electronic tool.
    Comments: A few commenters requested that we incorporate additional 
requirements into the ``Significance'' section. Generally, these 
commenters suggested that applicants present information about best 
practice strategies on data integration that result in reduced 
administrative burdens for multiple users and increase the potential 
relevant IDEA Part B and longitudinal data for use outside of IDEA 
oversight.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we 
believe these requirements are outside the scope of this Data 
Management Center, though the center will support States in their 
efforts to implement data integration strategies to meet the needs of 
their stakeholder groups, which we have further identified as a way to 
better address the data use needs of schools.
    Changes: As discussed above, we have revised outcome (b) to include 
the following examples of stakeholders: Policymakers, school personnel, 
local and State school boards, LEA administrators, researchers, charter 
school authorizers, parents and advocates, and Indian Tribes and Tribal 
organizations.
    Comments: One commenter requested that we clarify that the TA 
provided by the center will meet the needs of any

[[Page 41382]]

applying entity regardless of size, including Indian Tribes and Tribal 
organizations.
    Discussion: 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, which apply to all of the 
entities that receive an IDEA Part B grant (i.e., the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each of the 
outlying areas and the freely associated States, and the Bureau of 
Indian Education). While the Data Management Center would not directly 
provide intensive, targeted, and universal TA to entities other than 
those that receive IDEA Part B grants, it would support those grantees' 
reporting of IDEA Part B data to different stakeholder groups including 
LEAs, charter schools, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that the references to Title I of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 
in outcome (e) be revised to ``all titles'' of ESEA.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the concern but did not 
intend the list of examples provided in outcome (e) to be exhaustive. 
The Data Management Center will support States in their efforts to 
identify the Federal programs to analyze.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A commenter requested that we revise requirement (1) 
under ``Quality of project services'' to prioritize the treatment for 
members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based 
on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, rather 
than ensure their equal access and treatment.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment. Requirement (1) 
under ``Quality of project services'' mirrors the language in the 
related selection criteria in the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 75.210). Under this requirement, 
applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project will ensure equal 
access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability. We believe that the proposed requirement adequately 
addresses our interest in ensuring that project services are designed 
to ensure equal access to traditionally underrepresented groups.
    Changes: None.

Intended Outcomes of Integrated State Longitudinal Data Systems

    Comments: A commenter requested the Department clarify that the end 
result of an integrated State longitudinal data system should be to 
inform State and district decision-making in regard to targeting needed 
resources to protect civil rights and to improving the outcomes of 
students with disabilities.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that States should use their 
State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-quality data on the 
participation and outcomes of children with disabilities across various 
Federal programs in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of 
children with disabilities. We believe outcome (e) addresses the 
requested clarification. Outcome (e) states, ``The Data Management 
Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum . . . [i]ncreased 
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 ESEA) in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of 
children with disabilities.''
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A commenter requested that the Department add language 
that States must work to ensure they utilize charter school and 
traditional public school data to protect civil rights and improve the 
outcomes of students with disabilities.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we 
believe specifying how States utilize data in their analyses is beyond 
the scope of this priority. The Data Management Center will support 
States in their efforts to integrate their IDEA Part B data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal data 
systems and use their State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-
quality data on the participation and outcomes of children with 
disabilities across various Federal programs.
    Changes: None.

Data Collection Under IDEA

    Comments: A commenter recommended that State IDEA data collections 
capture the following data elements:
     Whether the student has a speech or language disorder;
     If the student is receiving IDEA services, the disability 
category and whether it is the primary or secondary impairment;
     If the student is receiving services under section 504, 
the disability category and whether it is the primary or secondary 
impairment;
     Whether the student is receiving hearing or speech and 
language services; and
     If the student has hearing loss, whether it is in one or 
both ears; the degree of hearing loss in each ear; and the type of 
hearing instruments used in the classroom setting.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, this 
priority does not address the data collection and reporting 
requirements for States under IDEA. The EDFacts information collection 
package (OMB control number 1850-0925), which would more appropriately 
address these issues, was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 
2019 (84 FR 13913). It addressed the IDEA Section 618 Part B data 
collection requirements and was open for public comment from April 8, 
2019, to May 8, 2019.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority:
    IDEA Data Management Center.
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (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 
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA. The 
Data Management Center will not provide the Department with access to 
child-level data and will further ensure that such data is de-
identified, as defined in 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1).
    The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a 
minimum, the following expected outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of States to integrate IDEA Part B data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal 
data systems;

[[Page 41383]]

    (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 (e.g., policymakers, school personnel, local and 
State school boards, LEA administrators, researchers, charter school 
authorizers, parents and advocates, Indian Tribes and Tribal 
organizations) through their longitudinal data systems;
    (c) Increased number of States that use data governance and data 
management procedures to increase their capacity to meet the IDEA Part 
B 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 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 must 
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 
include 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 State staff to 
implement the open source electronic tool;
    (d) Revising CEDS ``Connections'' \1\ to calculate metrics needed 
to report the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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., LEAs, charter schools, 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)).

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) 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 for TA and information;
    (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;

[[Page 41384]]

    (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).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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,\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;
    (C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a 
primary focus on meeting the needs of Developing Capacity States; \5\ 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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 will 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 will focus on helping such States develop those 
linkages to allow for more accurate and efficient reporting, 
analysis, and use of IDEA Part B data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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,\6\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``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 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 State;
    (2) Support the State's use of an open source electronic tool and 
provide technical solutions to meet State-specific data needs;
    (3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to maintain the 
data management and data system integration work in the future; and
    (4) Support the State's cybersecurity plan in collaboration, to the 
extent appropriate, with the Department's Student Privacy Policy Office 
and its Privacy Technical Assistance Center;
    (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 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

[[Page 41385]]

    (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.\7\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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;
    (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.
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.
    Note: This notice 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.

[[Page 41386]]

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 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 Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs 
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the 
proposed 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 Department believes that the costs associated with this final 
priority and requirements will be minimal, while the 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 benefits of implementing the program--
including improved data integration and improved data quality--will 
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.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

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

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priority 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

[[Page 41387]]

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 will evaluate the requirements of 
preparing an application and any associated costs, and weigh them 
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical 
Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity 
will most likely apply only if it determines that the likely benefits 
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
    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 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. 2020-14073 Filed 7-8-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P