[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18280-18286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2023-OSERS-0001]


Proposed 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 Data To 
Address Significant Disproportionality

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

ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority 
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data 
to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) under the Technical 
Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number 
84.373E. The Department may use this priority and these requirements 
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We take this 
action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide 
technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center would support 
States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze 
and use their data to address issues of significant disproportionality 
and would customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment 
period. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure 
that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include 
the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Help.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and 
requirements, address them to Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available. Commenters should not include in their comments any 
information that identifies other individuals or that permits readers 
to identify other individuals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email: 
[email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final priority and requirements, 
we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed 
priority or requirement that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priority or any of the proposed requirements would be 
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed 
priority or requirements could be revised to address potential 
challenges.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For additional information on significant disproportionality 
and associated requirements related to the identification of 
significant disproportionality, including information on the 
required review of policies, practices, and procedures, please see 
Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers at 
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Directed Questions:
    1. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by State 
educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) when 
using IDEA data to address significant disproportionality and promote 
equity, and how could this investment help address those challenges and 
barriers?
    2. What supports do SEAs require in providing for the required 
review of policies, practices, and procedures in LEAs identified as 
having significant disproportionality?
    3. What supports do SEAs require to assist, as needed, LEAs 
identified as having significant disproportionality in conducting their 
root cause analyses to identify the potential causes and contributing 
factors of the significant disproportionality?
    4. What supports do SEAs require to conduct their analysis of 
significant disproportionality at the State level?
    5. What supports do SEAs require to assist, as needed, LEAs 
identified as having significant disproportionality in expending IDEA 
funds on comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS) 
to address the causes and contributing factors of the significant 
disproportionality?
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific

[[Page 18281]]

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to reduce any 
regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priority and 
requirements. Please let us know how we could further reduce potential 
costs or increase potential benefits, while preserving effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 
5076, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between 
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for the proposed priority and requirements. If 
you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or 
auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 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, 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, where needed, to improve 
the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which 
include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2023, Public Law 117-328, gives the Secretary authority to use funds 
reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to ``administer and carry out 
other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, 
quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.'' Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div. H, Title III, 136 
Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div. 
H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal 
civil rights laws.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.646-300.647, 300.702; as 
well as IDEA Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 
(SPP/APR) Indicators 9 and 10 regarding disproportionate representation 
resulting from inappropriate identification, under 20 U.S.C. 
1416(a)(3)(C) and 34 CFR 300.600(d)(3); and IDEA Part B SPP/APR 
Indicator 4 regarding significant discrepancy in suspensions and 
expulsion rates, under 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1412(a)(22) and 34 
CFR 300.600(d)(1) and 300.170.
    Proposed Priority:
    This notice contains one proposed priority.
    National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address 
Significant Disproportionality.
    Background:
    Under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, States are required to collect, 
report, analyze, and use data regarding students with disabilities. 
These activities are intended support improved educational results and 
functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and to ensure 
that States meet IDEA requirements, with an emphasis on those 
requirements most closely related to improving educational results for 
children with disabilities. Additionally, IDEA section 618(d) requires 
States and the Department of the Interior to collect and examine data 
to determine if significant disproportionality on the basis of race and 
ethnicity is occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State with 
respect to (1) identification of children as children with 
disabilities, including by disability category; (2) placement of 
children with disabilities by educational settings; and (3) the 
incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including 
suspensions and expulsions. There are 98 separate factors for 
determining whether significant disproportionality exists in an LEA 
(i.e., 14 categories of analysis with respect to identification, 
placement, and disciplinary removal, cross-tabulated with seven racial 
and ethnic groups).
    In December 2016, the Department published a Notice of Final Rule 
\2\ (NFR) on significant disproportionality in special education to 
further clarify the statute. The NFR established a standard methodology 
that SEAs must use to determine whether significant disproportionality 
on the basis of race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and its 
LEAs. The NFR also clarified the requirements for the review of 
policies, practices, and procedures when significant disproportionality 
is identified, and it requires LEAs to identify the factors 
contributing to the significant disproportionality and address them, 
including by reserving 15 percent of their IDEA Part B funds for CCEIS. 
SEAs were required to begin implementing the regulation by reporting on 
significant disproportionality beginning in 2020 for the 2018-2019 
school year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The full text of the NFR can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2015-OSERS-0132-0318. Please also 
see Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers 
at https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf for additional information on significant 
disproportionality requirements.
    \3\ On July 3, 2018, the Department postponed the date for 
States to comply with these regulations until July 1, 2020. On March 
7, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia vacated the Department's delay. Council of Parent Attorneys 
and Advocates, Inc. v. DeVos, 365 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2019). The 
regulations took effect immediately after that judicial decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since that time, the IDEA section 618 data reported by SEAs in the 
Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinating Early Intervening 
Services collection (which include the number of LEAs required to 
reserve 15 percent of their IDEA Part B funds due to being identified 
as having significant disproportionality) \4\ reflected the following: 
For school year (SY) 2018-2019 (reported by SEAs in May 2020), SEAs 
reported that 417 LEAs, across 31 States, were required to reserve 15 
percent of their IDEA Part B funds due to significant 
disproportionality. Over the following two school years, the IDEA 
section 618 data submitted by SEAs reflected an increase in both the 
number of LEAs identified with significant disproportionality and the 
overall number of States that identified

[[Page 18282]]

LEAs. For SY 2020-2021 (the most recent IDEA section 618 data 
available, reported by SEAs in May 2022), SEAs identified 825 LEAs, 
across 39 States, with significant disproportionality. While this 
number represents only 5 percent of all LEAs in the country, it is a 
significant increase from the number of LEAs identified in SY 2018-
2019. Of the 825 LEAs identified in SY 2020-2021, 648 LEAs had not been 
identified with significant disproportionality in the previous two 
school years and 99 LEAs had been repeatedly identified in all three 
reporting years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An LEA that is identified as having significant 
disproportionality must reserve 15 percent of its IDEA, Part B funds 
to provide CCEIS. Please see questions C-3-1 to C-3-10 in 
Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers at 
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf for more information on CCEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's analysis of the above data--i.e., the simultaneous 
increase in the number of LEAs identified by the State for the first 
time and the number of LEAs that have continued to be identified with 
significant disproportionality--is that SEAs have varying needs for TA 
to correctly use their IDEA data to both identify and address 
significant disproportionality in their LEAs. In particular, SEAs with 
LEAs that have been identified as having significant disproportionality 
in multiple years may require additional TA to assist LEAs in 
conducting more robust root cause analyses, including using various 
data to identify and address the factors contributing to the 
significant disproportionality. In addition, SEAs with LEAs newly 
identified as having significant disproportionality may require 
additional TA on how to support LEAs, whether in reviewing their 
policies, practices, and procedures in the area in which the 
significant disproportionality was identified, or in conducting a 
robust root cause analysis to identify and address factors contributing 
to the significant disproportionality.
    Additionally, based on a review of IDEA Part B State Performance 
Plans and Annual Performance Reports (SPP/APR) submitted by SEAs since 
2016, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has found 
multiple instances of States confusing the methodologies used to 
calculate significant disproportionality with those used to calculate 
data under SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR 
Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate Representation). While there may 
be some similarities in these data sets and methodologies, the data 
analysis required for each is different and based on separate, distinct 
provisions of the IDEA. The significant disproportionality provision in 
IDEA section 618(d) requires SEAs to determine whether significant 
disproportionality on the basis of race and ethnicity is occurring in 
the State and its LEAs, as it relates to identification, placement, and 
discipline. In contrast, the reporting under SPP/APR Indicator 4 is 
based on IDEA section 612(a)(22), which requires SEAs to identify 
significant discrepancies, including by race and ethnicity, in the 
rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with 
disabilities among the LEAs in the State or compared to rates for 
nondisabled children in those LEAs. SPP/APR Indicator 9 is based on 
IDEA section 616(a)(3)(C) and requires SEAs to identify LEAs with 
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special 
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate 
identification. SPP/APR Indicator 10, also based on IDEA section 
616(a)(3)(C), requires SEAs to identify LEAs with disproportionate 
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability 
categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. In 
addition to providing data that is not valid and reliable to the 
Department, SEA confusion with implementing the methodologies for 
significant disproportionality and Indicators 4, 9, and 10, may lead to 
incorrect identification or non-identification of significant 
disproportionality, significant discrepancy, and disproportionate 
representation. OSEP has determined that SEAs, and LEAs through their 
work with SEAs, require additional assistance and resources to help 
them: (1) collect high-quality data and analyze it according to the 
SEA's standard methodology; (2) understand what their significant 
disproportionality data mean; (3) conduct root cause analysis of the 
data to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of the 
significant disproportionality; (4) evaluate policies, practices, and 
procedures that may be contributing to the significant 
disproportionality; and (5) make changes, including through the 
expenditure of IDEA funds for CCEIS, in any policy, practice, or 
procedure, and address any other factors, identified as contributing to 
the significant disproportionality.
    To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of data by States, OSEP proposes a 
priority to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality.
    Proposed Priority:
    The purpose of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data 
to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) is to promote equity 
by improving State capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and 
use section 618 data to address issues of significant 
disproportionality. The Center will also work to increase the capacity 
of State educational agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies 
(LEAs) through their work with SEAs, to use their data to conduct 
robust root cause analyses and identify evidence-based strategies for 
effectively using funds reserved for comprehensive coordinated early 
intervening services (CCEIS).
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of SEAs to analyze and use their data 
collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA to accurately identify 
significant disproportionality in the State and the LEAs of the State;
    (b) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to use data collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA, as 
well as other available data, to conduct root cause analyses in order 
to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of an LEA's 
significant disproportionality;
    (c) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to review and, as necessary, revise policies, practices, and 
procedures identified as contributing to significant 
disproportionality, and to address any other factors identified as 
contributing to the significant disproportionality;
    (d) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs, as needed, in using 
data to drive decisions related to the use of funds reserved for CCEIS;
    (e) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they 
collect; and
    (f) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use data related to 
significant disproportionality and apply the state methodology for 
identifying significant disproportionality, including distinguishing 
data collected under section 616 of the IDEA (SPP/APR Indicator 4 
(Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 
(Disproportionate Representation); and
    (g) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate their own 
methodology for identifying significant disproportionality.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and

[[Page 18283]]

administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, reporting, 
and using their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to correctly 
identify and address significant disproportionality. To meet this 
requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as well as the 
requirements related to significant disproportionality in section 
618(d) of IDEA;
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to 
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work 
with SEAs, to analyze and use their data collected under section 618 of 
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality;
    (iii) Describe how SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, are 
currently analyzing and using their data collected under section 618 of 
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality; and
    (iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, and LEAs 
through their work with SEAs, have in collecting, reporting, analyzing, 
and using their IDEA section 618 data to address significant 
disproportionality; and
    (2) Result in improved IDEA data collection, reporting, analysis, 
and use in identifying and addressing significant disproportionality.
    (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 products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices (EBPs).\5\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based 
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings 
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention 
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current information on the capacity of SEAs to use IDEA 
section 618 data to correctly identify significant disproportionality 
and assist LEAs as they conduct root cause analyses and review LEA 
policies, practices, and procedures;
    (ii) Current research and EBPs on effective practices to address 
disproportionality, particularly through the provision of CCEIS; and
    (iii) 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 
the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to 
collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 618 data in a manner 
that correctly identifies and addresses significant disproportionality 
in States and LEAs;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA 
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \7\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach; and
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\8\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA 
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as 
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, 
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or 
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, 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 SEA personnel 
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 SEA level;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance 
training systems related to the use of IDEA section 618 data to 
correctly identify and address significant disproportionality that 
include professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching;
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education

[[Page 18284]]

system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and families) 
to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there 
are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs 
through their work with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA 
section 618 data to correctly identify and address significant 
disproportionality; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States, such as the IDEA Data Center, the Early Childhood 
Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center on the 
Integration of IDEA Data, the National Center for Systemic Improvement, 
the EDFacts Initiative, and Institute of Education Sciences/National 
Center for Education Statistics research and development investments, 
where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly 
develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of 
this priority;
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\9\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the 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; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) 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, or 
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting 
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and 
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than 
the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are 
conducted virtually.
    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, or virtually, during each year of the project period; 
and
    Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than 
the end of the third quarter of each budget period if the conference is 
conducted virtually.
    (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 
5 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

[[Page 18285]]

meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; 
and
    (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.
    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 Priority and Requirements
    We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and 
requirements after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable 
rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this proposed priority and one or more of these 
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal 
Register.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We also have reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the proposed priority and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563. In summary, 
the potential costs associated with this 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 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.
    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 both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    The proposed priority contains information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the 
proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data 
collection.
    Clarity of the Regulations

[[Page 18286]]

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
    [ssquf] Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
    [ssquf] Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
    [ssquf] Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
    [ssquf] Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
    [ssquf] Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
    [ssquf] What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make these 
proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define ``small 
entities'' as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual 
revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by 
small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts), with a population of less than 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under 
State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; 
private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying 
areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the 
proposed priority would be limited to paperwork burden related to 
preparing an application and that the benefits of the proposed priority 
would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority would 
impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding 
under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an 
eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an 
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the 
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity probably would 
apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs 
of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priority would not impose any 
additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the 
entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the 
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence 
of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an 
application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.
    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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at: www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format 
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 
available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary. Delegated the authority to perform the 
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education 
and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-06417 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P