[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45340-45347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2023-OESE-0038]


Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities and the School Safety National Activities--National 
Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and 
Supports

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final priority and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority 
and requirements for the National Technical Assistance Center on 
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (Center) under the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results 
for Children with Disabilities and the School Safety National 
Activities programs, Assistance Listing Number 84.326S. The final 
priority and requirements in this document are specific to the work 
funded out of the School Safety National Activities program and are 
designed to improve student safety and well-being. We may use this 
priority or one or more of these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 
and later years.

DATES: Effective August 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Bradley, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 
(202) 987-1128. 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: 
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Center is to enhance the 
capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement 
positive and safe school climates, and effectively support and respond 
to students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs to 
ensure participation and enhance learning, by implementing evidence-
based practices (EBPs) within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) 
framework.

    Note: The Center is jointly funded under the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA). By combining funds from two separate programs, 
the Department is able to make a more comprehensive investment to 
address the purpose of the Center.

    Program Authority: Section 4631(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
7281).
    We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) 
for this program in the Federal Register on March 13, 2023 (88 FR 
15336). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the particular priority, including the requirements.
    As discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of 
this document, we made minor changes to the priority. We made both 
substantive and editorial changes to the application requirements.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 16 
parties submitted comments addressing the priority, including the 
requirements.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priority and requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of 
the NPP follows. We group major issues according to subject.
    General Comments:
    Comment: All commenters expressed general support for the priority 
and requirements. Commenters supported the Department's efforts to 
implement EBPs within an MTSS/Positive Behavioral Interventions and 
Supports (PBIS) framework, supports for underserved students, and the 
provision of technical assistance (TA) to State educational agencies 
(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop, expand, and 
sustain schoolwide MTSS frameworks and to build personnel capacity and 
expertise to promote safe, positive, predictable, and culturally and 
linguistically inclusive learning environments where students feel a 
sense of belonging.
    In addition, a commenter appreciated the access to external 
expertise; a second commenter recognized the need for support of 
various subgroups and geographic areas; and a third commenter expressed 
support for the inclusion of rural schools in the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the program and for the 
specific emphasis on implementing EBPs within an MTSS/PBIS framework.

[[Page 45341]]

    Changes: None.
    Comments Addressing the Priority:
    Comment: All commenters expressed general support for the priority. 
Some commenters suggested additions to the priority. One commenter 
recommended emphasizing in-service training opportunities for teachers 
and training for school administrators. A second commenter suggested 
revising the priority to incorporate student and parent input into all 
aspects of the initiative, including development, implementation, 
evaluation, and continuous quality improvement. A third commenter 
suggested prioritizing Tier 1 prevention programs to support building 
student social and emotional skills.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of providing training for 
administrators. We note that administrators are included under school-
based and LEA personnel referenced throughout the priority as intended 
recipients of capacity-building services or users of Center products, 
and we have added a phrase to clarify their inclusion in the priority.
    We agree with the importance of in-service training and coaching to 
ensure current teachers and staff have the necessary knowledge and 
skills for effective implementation, and we also believe that pre-
service training could be an effective approach. We are revising the 
priority to specify in-service training, coaching, and pre-service 
training as methods that can be used to improve knowledge and skills.
    We agree with the importance of including end user recipients of 
the services as critical partners in ensuring that TA activities are 
high-quality, relevant, and useful in improving outcomes for intended 
beneficiaries. We believe student and family engagement and 
collaboration are sufficiently incorporated through several application 
requirements, such as those in paragraphs (b)(5)(iv)(D) and (e)(4). In 
addition, family and student engagement and collaboration have been 
evident in prior iterations of this investment and we would expect the 
same in this iteration.
    Finally, we also agree with the need to prioritize Tier 1 
prevention to include building social and emotional skills. Because the 
purpose of this priority is to effectively support and respond to 
students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs, we do 
not believe additional changes are necessary.
    Changes: We have revised expected outcome (b) to specifically 
reference pre- and in-service training and coaching and to clarify that 
administrators and practitioners are included in the reference to 
school personnel.
    Comments Addressing the Application Requirements:
    Comment: One commenter strongly urged adding gender identity/LGBTQ+ 
status, limited English proficiency/language status, and socio-economic 
status to application requirement (b)(1).
    Discussion: We support including groups that have traditionally 
been underrepresented. We note that application requirement (d)(1) also 
lists the same categories of traditionally underrepresented groups.
    Changes: We have added LGBTQI+, English learner, and socio-economic 
status to application requirement (b)(1). We have also revised 
application requirement (d)(1) to align with the language in (b)(1).
    Comment: One commenter recommended revising application requirement 
(b)(5) to require applicants to describe how they will provide TA to 
families, especially underserved families, and to federally funded 
parent centers.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of providing TA directly 
to parents and families. The Department has several investments to 
support parents and families, including Parent Training and Information 
Centers, Community Parent Resource Centers, and Statewide Family 
Engagement Centers (For more information see: https://www.parentcenterhub.org/find-your-center/ and https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grants-support-services/school-choice-improvement-programs/statewide-family-engagement-centers-program). In 
addition, application requirement (b)(5)(iv)(D) requires applicants to 
describe how they will work across the education system (e.g., SEAs, 
regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, families) to ensure adequate 
communication across levels as well as systems to support the use of 
PBIS. The Department believes this requirement sufficiently addresses 
the commenter's interest in supporting family and parent engagement. 
The Center will provide TA to SEAs and LEAs on enhancing efforts to 
engage and collaborate with families. The Center will also collaborate 
with and provide information to the federally funded parent grants.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended referring to the perspectives of 
other Department investments in application requirement (e)(4).
    Discussion: Under requirement (e)(4), applicants must demonstrate 
how the project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, 
including a list of entities, ``among others.'' The list in the 
requirement is not intended to be exhaustive. We believe the inclusion 
of ``among others'' is adequate to include other related Federal 
investments if the applicant so chooses. We believe that consideration 
of other perspectives, including other Department investments, should 
be discretionary, not mandatory, as SEAs and LEAs are the primary 
recipients of services for this investment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended we also require applicants to 
describe how they will develop resources and tools, and use 
dissemination strategies, that are easily accessible to practitioners.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of ensuring that resources 
and tools are developed and formatted specific to intended audiences 
and are relevant and useful to those served by the Center, but we do 
not think an additional application requirement is necessary. 
Applicants' proposals regarding the design and quality of their 
materials and services are addressed in application requirements 
(b)(5)(iii)(A), (b)(6), and (b)(7) and will be evaluated and scored by 
peer reviewers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we emphasize universal TA and 
ensure that the TA Center is available to all States, districts, and 
schools.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important for universal TA to be 
available to a broad audience. Application requirement (f)(4) requires 
a website and dissemination plan to ensure broad dissemination of 
resources, tools, and access to expertise. Building State and local 
capacity to expand access to experts is explicitly stated in the 
purpose of the priority and as a Center outcome (see expected outcome 
(b)). In past iterations of this investment, the ``train the trainers'' 
approach successfully built capacity for universal prevention and 
implementation practices, and applicants may consider this approach 
again as an activity to build SEA and LEA capacity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested expanding the diversity of 
perspectives on the 3+2 evaluation team to include parent centers, 
statewide family engagement centers, the center for parent information 
and resources, and regional parent technical assistance centers.

[[Page 45342]]

    Discussion: We agree with including a diversity of perspectives 
throughout the Center's activities, including on the 3+2 review team, 
and recipients of services, such as parent centers, can provide an 
important perspective to the 3+2 review team. Because parent centers 
are only one type of service recipient, however, we believe it would be 
more appropriate to incorporate the broader category of ``recipients of 
services'' onto the review team and not limit the perspective to only 
parent centers but include a broader parent perspective as well as 
other recipient perspectives such as school leaders, teachers, LEA and 
SEA personnel, and students. We are revising the corresponding 
application requirement to include recipients of services, which 
includes the Federal parent centers.
    Changes: Under Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project, in paragraph 
(a), we have expanded the participants on the 3+2 review team to 
include recipients of services.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested being more specific on required 
collaborations, one requesting the inclusion of families and other 
Federal investments and one the inclusion of community organizations 
(backbone organizations).
    Discussion: We agree that it is important that the Center 
collaborate with a range of stakeholders and partners to accomplish the 
outcomes of this investment.
    Changes: We have added ``families, community providers, and other 
Federal investments'' to application requirement (b)(6)(ii).
    Comment: One commenter recommended we include rural schools in 
application requirement (a)(1)(iii).
    Discussion: Application requirement (a)(1)(iii) requires an 
applicant to present information on current implementation of MTSS/PBIS 
and its benefits for students, as part of a larger requirement in 
paragraph (a)(1) to demonstrate how the applicant's project will 
improve implementation and scaling of EBPs within an MTSS/PBIS 
framework and provide additional behavioral supports for students whose 
behavior impacts their ability to benefit from a high-quality education 
environment. We agree that it is important for the priority and 
requirements to address information about and benefits to rural 
schools, and note that rural schools are already included in the list 
of settings described in the priority. To address the commenter's 
feedback on providing information about rural schools in the 
application requirements, we are revising requirement (a)(1) to ensure 
that applicants address how the proposed project will improve 
implementation of MTSS/PBIS frameworks across the variety of settings 
listed in the priority, which includes rural settings. We are making 
this change to (a)(1) generally, and not simply to (a)(1)(iii) as the 
commenter requested, because we believe all three sub-paragraphs would 
be strengthened by the requirement to address a variety of settings. 
The Department notes that in any year we use this priority, we can 
specify, in the notice inviting applications, which of the settings in 
the priority must be addressed by the applicants.
    Changes: We have added language to requirement (a)(1) to include 
``other underserved students in the settings established in the 
priority.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we require applicants to 
provide evidence of their knowledge of rural schools and demonstrate 
their experience in implementing EBPs in rural schools.
    Discussion: We agree that applicants must demonstrate knowledge of 
and experience in the required activities. As mentioned above, we 
revised requirement (a)(1) to ensure that applicants demonstrate how 
the proposed project will improve implementation of MTSS/PBIS 
frameworks across a variety of settings, including rural settings.
    Additionally, application requirement (d)(2) requires applicants to 
address how their key personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have 
the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities 
and achieve the project's intended outcomes. We believe the applicants' 
responses to these two requirements will provide reviewers with 
sufficient information to ensure that applicants are prepared to be 
successful implementing the project in a variety of settings, including 
rural areas. In addition, application requirement (b)(6)(ii) requires 
applicants to list collaborators. In the past, successful applicants 
for national TA centers have gathered a team of experts with a range of 
expertise to address the various requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested the Department include rural areas 
and Tribal areas in application requirement (b)(5)(iv)(A).
    Discussion: Application requirement (b)(5)(iv)(A) requires the 
applicant to identify the intended recipients of the Center's 
intensive, sustained TA, including ``recipients from a variety of 
settings and geographic distribution.'' Because rural areas are 
specifically included among the priority's implementation settings and 
throughout the requirements, as discussed above, we do not believe 
separate mention is necessary in this application requirement. We note 
that Tribal areas are not one of the specified implementation settings 
in the priority. In addition, in the course of considering this 
comment, we also noted the absence of implementation settings with a 
high percentage of English learners.
    Changes: In the priority, we have added to the list of 
implementation settings federally supported elementary schools or 
secondary schools for Indian students and English learners, which 
allows them to be among the ``recipients from a variety of settings'' 
under requirement (b)(5)(iv)(A).
    Comment: One commenter, while generally supporting the priority and 
requirements, expressed concern that some requirements will 
unintentionally create burdensome conditions that will preclude 
successful applications from rural and small LEAs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the overall support for the priority but 
note that this investment is for a national TA Center to enhance the 
capacity of States and LEAs across the country. Any entity interested 
in applying for this grant will need to be able to meet the 
requirements to apply for and implement the grant.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying the roles and 
responsibilities of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 
project officer, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) 
staff, and the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIPP) 
as referenced in application requirement (c)(1).
    Discussion: This Center will address two absolute priorities. 
Absolute Priority 1 will be funded by OSEP and managed by the OSEP 
project officer. Absolute Priority 2 will be funded by OESE and managed 
by OESE staff. The OSEP project officer and OESE staff will collaborate 
to manage the overall investment. The CIPP Center, an OSEP-funded TA 
center, will provide TA to the Center funded under this competition to 
help the Center review and revise the project evaluation plan to ensure 
the plan is well designed and adequate to collect data needed to 
demonstrate progress in meeting the grant requirements. Application 
requirements include assurances that the applicant will collaborate 
with CIPP on an evaluation plan. Work with CIPP will be further 
described at the Center kickoff meeting post-award. In addition, 
applicants will be given an opportunity

[[Page 45343]]

to attend an informational webinar and will be given a contact at the 
Department for additional application information and questions.
    Changes: None.
    FINAL PRIORITY:
    Technical Assistance--School Safety National Activities Program--
National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral 
Interventions and Supports.
    The purpose of this priority is to enhance the capacity of SEAs and 
LEAs to implement positive and safe school environments, and 
effectively support and respond to students' social, emotional, 
behavioral, and mental health needs to improve their learning, by 
implementing EBPs \1\ within an MTSS/PBIS framework in one or more of 
the following settings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``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) Programs or schools serving high percentages of students from 
low-income families in the following settings:
    (1) Early learning programs.
    (2) Elementary schools.
    (3) Middle schools.
    (4) High schools.
    (5) Career and technical education programs.
    (6) Rural schools.
    (ii) Alternative schools and programs.
    (iii) Juvenile justice system or correctional facilities.
    (iv) Low-performing schools.
    (v) Schools with a high student-to-mental health provider ratio.
    (vi) Schools with high rates of chronic absenteeism, exclusionary 
discipline, referrals to the juvenile justice system, bullying/
harassment, community and school violence, or substance abuse.
    (vii) Schools in which students recently experienced a natural 
disaster, incident of violence, or traumatic event.
    (viii) Schools with high percentages of students with disabilities 
or English learners.
    (ix) Federally supported elementary schools or secondary schools 
for Indian students.
    To meet this priority, the applicant must propose to achieve, at a 
minimum, one or more of the following expected outcomes:
    (a) Improved systems and resources at the national, regional, 
State, and district levels to support, develop, align, and sustain 
local implementation of MTSS/PBIS efforts to organize EBPs to support 
positive school climates and respond to student social, emotional, 
behavioral, and mental health needs to improve access to and engagement 
in learning.
    (b) Improved capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to support the 
knowledge and skills development of school personnel, including 
administrators and practitioners, through efforts such as pre-service 
and in-service training and coaching, to implement MTSS/PBIS as a 
framework to organize EBPs to support and respond to student needs, 
particularly those students from underserved and culturally and 
linguistically diverse backgrounds, and students whose behaviors may 
interfere with their ability to fully participate in, and benefit from, 
a high-quality learning environment.
    (c) Increased use by SEAs, LEAs, and school-based personnel of 
reliable and valid tools and processes for enhancing and assessing the 
fidelity of implementation of an MTSS/PBIS framework and for measuring 
intended outcomes, including improvements in school climate; time spent 
on instruction; well-being and belonging; overall academic achievement; 
and reductions in absenteeism, discipline referrals, suspensions, 
expulsions, the use of restraints or seclusion, illegal use of drugs, 
and referrals to law enforcement.
    (d) Improved implementation of an MTSS/PBIS framework and EBPs, and 
assessment of SEA or LEA recipients of grant programs that focus on 
improving positive school climates and implementing EBPs to support and 
respond to students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health 
needs.
    (e) Enhanced response and recovery assistance, as requested by and 
in collaboration with the Department, for violent or traumatic 
incidents that impact school communities, including intensive 
individualized support to facilitate recovery of the learning 
environment.
    (f) Increased body of knowledge and evidence to enhance 
implementation of PBIS and other emerging MTSS frameworks and EBPs to 
address the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of 
underserved students in the settings established in the priority.
    Requirements:
    The Department proposes the following eligibility and application 
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
    Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the 
IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered 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.
    Application Requirements:
    (a) Demonstrate how the proposed project will--
    (1) Improve SEAs' and LEAs' implementation, scaling, and sustaining 
of EBPs within an MTSS/PBIS framework and policies that are designed to 
improve school climate and, as needed, provide additional behavioral 
supports for students whose behavior impacts their ability to fully 
participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment, 
including students with disabilities and other underserved students in 
the settings established in the priority. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must--
    (i) Present applicable State, regional, or local data demonstrating 
SEAs' and LEAs' needs related to (A) implementation of EBPs and 
policies to improve school climate, student well-being and belonging; 
and (B) increasing students' ability to fully participate in, and 
benefit from, a high-quality learning environment;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current education issues and policy 
initiatives relating to MTSS/PBIS and school climate practices and 
policies and EBPs to effectively support and respond to student 
behavior that impacts learning; and
    (iii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of MTSS/PBIS, EBPs, policies, best practices, and benefits for all 
students, especially underserved students and those from culturally and 
linguistically diverse backgrounds; and
    (2) Improve the implementation of EBPs within an MTSS/PBIS 
framework to effectively support and respond to student behaviors that 
impact access to and participation in learning.
    (b) Demonstrate 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, disability, LGBTQI+, English learner, or socio-
economic status. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe 
how it will--
    (i) Identify the TA and information needs of the intended 
recipients; and
    (ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the TA;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--

[[Page 45344]]

    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) The logic model \2\ 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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As defined in 34 CFR 77.1, ``logic model'' (also referred to 
as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project 
components of the proposed project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' 
that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant 
outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational 
relationships among the key project components and relevant 
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and 
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, 
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed 
relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical 
support for this framework;
    (4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs. To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) The current research on the assessment of the implementation of 
MTSS/PBIS frameworks and related EBPs;
    (ii) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current and 
emerging research and practices 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 of 
PBIS;
    (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, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those 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 Center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by Center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
Center's website by independent users. Brief communications by 
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 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, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those 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 systems, available resources, and ability to build capacity at 
the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\5\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the 
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 from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that 
will receive the products and services designed to improve school 
climate;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the State- 
and local-level personnel to work with the project, including their 
commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their 
needs, current systems, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the local level;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, LEAs, local Part C 
agencies, charter management organizations, and private school 
organizations to build or enhance training systems that include 
professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching; and
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, 
families, community providers) to ensure that there is communication 
between each level and that there are systems in place to support the 
use of PBIS;
    (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, including 
families, community providers, and other Federal investments as 
appropriate, and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes; and
    (7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the project 
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to 
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, 
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
    (c) Include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the 
following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe measures of 
progress in implementation, including criteria for determining the 
extent to which the project's products and services have met the goals 
for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or 
results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those 
activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed 
project, as described in its logic model, have been met.
    The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the 
evaluation plan, it will--
    (1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education 
Programs (OSEP) project officer in consultation with Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) staff, a project liaison with 
sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of 
the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program 
and Project Performance (CIPP),\6\ the project

[[Page 45345]]

director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The major tasks of CIPP are to guide, coordinate, and 
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large 
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per 
year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; 
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, 
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIPP are expected to 
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and 
unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of 
the project's budget. CIPP does not function as a third-party 
evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Revise the logic model submitted in the application, as 
appropriate, to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of 
implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or 
clarifications to the model discussed at the kickoff meeting;
    (ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in 
the application, as appropriate, to be consistent with the revised 
logic model and using the most rigorous design suitable (e.g., prepare 
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; 
develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both 
the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, 
as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify 
analytic strategies); and
    (iii) Revise the evaluation plan submitted in the application such 
that it clearly--
    (A) Specifies the evaluation questions, measures, and associated 
instruments or sources for data appropriate to answer these questions, 
suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for 
conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for 
completing the evaluation activities;
    (B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the 
second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 
review) by OSEP for continued funding described under the heading 
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and
    (C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project 
officer in consultation with OESE staff, with the assistance of CIPP, 
as needed, to specify the project performance measures to be addressed 
in the project's annual performance report;
    (2) Dedicate sufficient staff time and other resources during the 
first 6 months of the project to collaborate with CIPP staff, including 
regular meetings (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or monthly) with CIPP and the 
OSEP project officer, in order to accomplish the tasks described in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
    (3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 
of this section and revising and implementing the evaluation plan. 
Please note in your budget narrative the funds dedicated for this 
activity.
    (d) Demonstrate 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, 
disability, LGBTQI+, English learner, or socio-economic status, as 
appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits.
    (e) Demonstrate 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 policymakers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include 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 kickoff meeting in Washington, DC after 
receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, 
with the OSEP project officer, OESE representative, 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;
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP or OESE; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC 
during the second year of the project period;
    (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 in consultation with OESE staff as appropriate. 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) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project 
goals is posted on the project website; and
    (6) Include 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 a new award at the end of 
this award period, as appropriate.
    Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
    In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth 
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a), including--
    (a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts 
and recipients of services who have experience and knowledge in PBIS. 
This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that 
will be held during the last half of the second year of the project 
period;
    (b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's 
products and services and the extent to which the project's products 
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to 
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
    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:

[[Page 45346]]

    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    This 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 priority, we invite applications 
through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal Governments 
or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). 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).
    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, including requirements, only on 
a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We 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 the final 
priority, including 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 to 
focus attention on an identified need to enhance the capacity of States 
and LEAs to implement positive and safe school climates, and 
effectively support and respond to students' social, emotional, 
behavioral, and mental health needs to ensure participation and enhance 
learning, by implementing EBPs within an MTSS framework, 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 burdensome for eligible applicants, 
including small entities.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the priority, including requirements, 
is needed to administer the program effectively.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priority, including requirements, contains information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under control number 
1820-0028; the final priority,

[[Page 45347]]

including requirements, does not affect the currently approved data 
collection.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will 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 LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State 
law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private 
nonprofit organizations; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and 
for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an 
applicant by this final priority, including requirements, will be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and 
that the benefits of this final priority, including requirements, will 
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the TA Center grant program is voluntary. For this 
reason, the final priority, including requirements, imposes no burden 
on small entities unless they apply for funding under the program. We 
expect that in determining whether to apply for TA Center 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 grant to establish and 
operate the TA Center. 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, including requirements, will 
not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant 
than the entity would face in the absence of this final action. That 
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the 
absence of this 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 will 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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document 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 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.

James F. Lane,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Authority to 
Perform the Functions and Duties of Assistant Secretary for the Office 
of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-15162 Filed 7-13-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P