[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13294-13302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0001]


Proposed Priorities and Requirements--Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve 
State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early 
Childhood IDEA Data

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities 
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center To Improve 
State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early 
Childhood IDEA Data (Center) under the Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.373Z. The 
Department may use these priorities and requirements for competitions 
in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We take this action to 
identify the national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the early childhood data 
collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 7, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation 
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, 
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted 
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period 
closes. To ensure the Department does not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit 
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, 
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting 
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under 
``FAQ.''

    Note: The Department's policy is generally to make comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0135. 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 priorities and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final priorities and 
requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of 
the proposed priorities and requirements that each comment addresses.
    Directed Question: Given that Congress has not yet enacted an 
appropriation for FY 2024, the Department is considering whether it may 
use a phased-in funding approach to this investment, with smaller 
awards in the initial years of the project and higher awards in later 
years. The Department requests specific public comment on the extent to 
which such an approach would require substantive changes to the 
proposed priority and whether there are particular areas of focus 
(e.g., data sharing templates, data analyses tools) that may benefit 
from a phased-in approach.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from these proposed priorities and requirements. Please let us know of 
any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential 
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of 
the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed priorities and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, please contact the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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

[[Page 13295]]

disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other 
documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities 
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 one-half of one 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 sections 616 
and 642 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, 
Division 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, 
Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

Proposed Priorities

    This document contains two proposed priorities.
    Proposed Priority 1: National Technical Assistance Center To 
Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
Early Childhood IDEA Data.
    Background:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to establish a TA center 
to provide TA to (1) improve States' capacity to collect, report, 
analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data 
(including IDEA section 618 Part C data and section 616 Part C data) 
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data \1\ (limited to Part B 
preschool data elements required under IDEA sections 616 and 618 \2\); 
and (2) enhance, streamline, and integrate statewide, child-level early 
childhood data systems (including Part C and Part B preschool special 
education data systems) to address critical policy questions that would 
facilitate program improvement and improve compliance accountability 
and outcomes or results for children served under Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document, ``IDEA Part B preschool special 
education data'' refers to IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 
618 Part C data and IDEA section 616 Part C data) and IDEA Part B 
preschool special education data on children with disabilities, ages 
3 through 5, required under section 616 of IDEA for those indicators 
that are not solely based on IDEA section 618 data (e.g., SPP/APR 
Indicators B7 (Preschool Children with Improved Outcomes) and B12 
(Transition from Part C to Part B).
    \2\ TA on the other Part B data required under sections 616 and 
618 of IDEA would be provided through the proposed priority in the 
notice of proposed priority and requirements for the National 
Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, 
Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (ALN 84.373Y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, there have been increased expectations for State Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education programs to 
collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality data. State-level staff 
in Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education 
programs are expected to report higher quality data, be able to provide 
more in-depth explanations of the data, use the data to improve 
programs, compliance, and general supervision of Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education programs, and 
present the data in an understandable fashion to all data users, 
including novice data users. Under the EDFacts Modernization Project, 
which began with the submission of the 2022-23 IDEA section 618 data, 
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is expecting States to 
conduct data quality work prior to the due date for States to submit 
their data; this work was previously completed by OSEP after the due 
date. Additionally, beginning with the Federal fiscal year 2022 State 
Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) (submitted in 
2024), State Part C early intervention programs must report additional 
data and information to support the assumption that the data reported 
for indicator C4 (Family Involvement) \3\ are representative of those 
infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families receiving 
services in their State. Also, State-level staff in Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education programs are 
expected to analyze and use data to support and provide evidence of 
compliance with requirements of IDEA and improvement of results for 
children with disabilities through OSEP's Differentiated Monitoring and 
Support as part of the results-driven accountability system. Finally, 
there is an expectation that States present their data in a format that 
engages stakeholders to participate in important discussions about 
program improvement and accountability compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Indicator C4 requires States to report on the percent of 
families participating in Part C who report that early intervention 
services have helped the family: (a) know their rights; (b) 
effectively communicate their children's needs; and (c) help their 
children develop and learn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As IDEA data expectations have evolved and increased, there is a 
need to support both experienced and new data staff who work in Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education programs. In 
2023, approximately 17 percent of the State data managers for Part C 
early intervention programs had been in the job less than a year and 
approximately 23 percent had only been in the job between one and three 
years. The IDEA Infants and Toddlers Coordinators Association (ITCA) 
reported that 51 percent of Part C coordinators have been in the 
position for two years or less in their 2022 Tipping Points Survey 
(ITCA, 2022).\4\ In 2023, approximately 59 percent of Part B preschool 
special education coordinators had three or less years of experience 
(Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2023).\5\ Due to the 
continued turnover among Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education staff, there is a need to support new and novice 
staff to collect, report, analyze, and appropriately use the IDEA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more information on ITCA's 2022 Tipping Points Survey, 
please go to 2022 Tipping Points Survey (ideainfanttoddler.org). 
www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2022-Tipping-Points-Survey.pdf.
    \5\ Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2023). Part B, 
section 619 National Survey 2023. https://ectacenter.org/sec619/sec619survey.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to increased expectations on the collection, reporting, 
analysis, and use of IDEA data and staff turnover, there is a need to 
find efficient, effective, and user-friendly approaches to conducting

[[Page 13296]]

the early childhood IDEA data work. Improved data management processes, 
as well as the growing development of linked and integrated child-level 
data in Part C data systems, Part B preschool special education data 
systems, other early learning program data systems, and statewide 
longitudinal data systems for school-aged children, are key approaches 
for States in meeting these increased expectations. States need to 
establish and implement effective early childhood data management and, 
where appropriate, data system integration policies and procedures to 
support program improvement, compliance accountability, and Federal and 
public reporting. Improved policies and procedures would allow States, 
where appropriate, to link or integrate child-level data in Part C data 
systems, Part B preschool special education data systems, other early 
learning program data systems, and statewide longitudinal data systems 
for school-aged children. An early childhood integrated data system 
(ECIDS) could help States to identify what works best to improve 
outcomes for young children in their States. For instance, an ECIDS 
provides the opportunity for States to assess which characteristics of 
services are related to better outcomes for children and families or 
the relationship between early childhood setting and early childhood 
outcomes. An ECIDS that includes data from across various early care 
and education programs could also improve child find activities in the 
State by identifying strong referral sources and those where more 
outreach may be needed. An ECIDS could also help States determine the 
other early care and education programs that young children with 
disabilities and their families are participating in, allowing States 
to maximize efficiency in the operation of the early intervention or 
early childhood special education program while maintaining or 
improving outcomes.
    Building robust ECIDSs that include Part C early intervention data 
and Part B preschool special education data would improve responses to 
critical policy questions, facilitate program improvement, and improve 
compliance accountability for Part C early intervention and Part B 
preschool special education programs. This level of integration would 
help ensure that States report high-quality IDEA data to the Department 
and the public.
    Though some improvements have been made over the last 10 years in 
linking and integrating Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education data to data from other early learning programs, K-12 
data systems, and the workforce, as well as longitudinally over time, 
the percent of State programs that report they can make these linkages 
remained low in 2021. Less than 40 percent of Part C early intervention 
and Part B preschool special education programs that responded said 
they can link their child-level data to their workforce data. Less than 
30 percent of Part C early intervention programs that responded said 
their State links Part C child-level data to Early Head Start, Head 
Start, State Pre-K, childcare programs, home visiting programs, or 
other early care or education programs. Most Part C early intervention 
programs that responded said they have never linked their Part C data 
to their Part B preschool special education data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Perez, N., & Mercier, B. (2022). 2021 DaSy data systems 
(State of the States) survey findings. SRI International. https://dasycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DaSy_2021DaSyDataSystemsSurveyFindings_Acc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed priority would directly address the increased 
expectations and capacity challenges Part C early intervention and Part 
B preschool special education programs face with respect to effectively 
and efficiently collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-
quality IDEA data.
    Proposed Priority 1:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate a National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data (Center).
    The Center will provide TA to (1) improve States' capacity to 
collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C data 
(including IDEA section 618 Part C data and IDEA section 616 Part C 
data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data on children with 
disabilities; and (2) enhance, streamline, and integrate statewide, 
child-level early childhood data systems (including Part C and Part B 
preschool special education data systems) to address critical policy 
questions that will facilitate program improvement, improve compliance 
accountability, and improve outcomes or results for children served 
under Part C and Part B preschool special education programs. These 
Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data 
systems must allow the States to (1) effectively and efficiently 
respond to all IDEA-related data submission requirements (e.g., Part C 
section 616 and 618 data and Part B preschool special education data); 
(2) respond to critical policy questions that will facilitate program 
improvement and compliance accountability; and (3) comply with 
applicable privacy requirements, including the privacy and 
confidentiality requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA and applicable 
provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 
1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR part 99.\7\ The Center must 
achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Center must review the need for additional resources 
(with input from the Department) and disseminate existing resources 
developed by the Department, such as: (1) Understanding the 
Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA Early Childhood 
Programs (October 2016); (2) IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk (Surprenant & 
Miller, August 24, 2022); (3) Webinars such as Navigating IDEA and 
FERPA To Protect Privacy in Today's Early Childhood World (September 
22, 2023); and (4) Data sharing agreement template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C 
data and section 618 Part C data);
    (b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B preschool special education data;
    (c) Increased number of States with data system integration plans 
that consider the linking of Part C and Part B preschool special 
education data (that comply with all applicable privacy laws) and using 
such integrated or linked Part C early intervention and Part B 
preschool special education data to improve program compliance and 
accountability;
    (d) Increased number of States that use their Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education data system to 
identify and answer critical State-determined policy questions to drive 
program improvement, improve results for children with disabilities, 
and improve compliance accountability;
    (e) Increased capacity of States to use available integrated or 
linked Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education 
data and/or early childhood integrated data systems to analyze high-
quality data on the participation and outcomes of infants, toddlers, 
and children with disabilities served under IDEA who may also 
participate in other programs (e.g., childcare, Early Head Start, Head 
Start, child care, publicly funded preschool, and home visiting 
programs);
    (f) Increased number of States with data system integration plans 
that consider linking of Part C and Part B preschool special education 
data systems to other statewide longitudinal and early learning data 
systems and ensure that such linkages comply with all applicable 
privacy laws;

[[Page 13297]]

    (g) Increased capacity of States to implement and document Part C 
and Part B preschool special education data management policies and 
procedures and data system integration activities and to develop a 
sustainability plan to continue this data management and data system 
integration work in the future;
    (h) Increased capacity of States to address personnel training 
needs to meet the Part C and Part B preschool special education data 
collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA through development of effective tools (e.g., training modules) 
and resources (e.g., new Part C Data Managers resources), as well as 
providing opportunities for in-person and virtual cross-State training 
for personnel in State and local programs and agencies regarding Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data 
collection and reporting requirements; and
    (i) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use Part C and Part B preschool special education data to support 
equitable identification, access, services, outcomes, and impact of 
early intervention and preschool special education and related services 
on infants, toddlers, and young children receiving services under IDEA.
    In addition, the Center must provide a range of targeted and 
general TA products and services for improving States' capacity to link 
and integrate their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education data with data/data systems associated with other 
Federal programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and 
their families in order to report high-quality Part C data and Part B 
preschool special education data required under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA, drive program improvement, improve results for children with 
disabilities, and improve compliance accountability. Such TA must 
include, at a minimum, in Years 2 through 5:
    (a) In partnership with the Department, developing an open-source 
electronic tool to assist States in linking and integrating their Part 
C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data with 
other data/data systems associated with other Federal programs that 
support infants, toddlers, and young children and their families in 
order to provide high-quality reporting of the Part C data and Part B 
preschool special education data required under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA, drive program improvement, improve results for children with 
disabilities, and improve compliance accountability. The tool must 
utilize Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) and meet States' needs 
associated with linking or integrating their Part C early intervention 
and Part B preschool special education data with other data/data 
systems associated with other Federal programs that support infants, 
toddlers, and young children and their families;
    (b) Developing CEDS ``Connections'' to ensure the electronic tool 
is built for States to conduct analyses related to reporting the IDEA 
Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special education data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, driving program improvement, 
improving results for children with disabilities, and improving 
compliance accountability;
    (c) Developing and implementing a plan to maintain the appropriate 
functionality of the open-source electronic tool described in paragraph 
(a) of this section as changes are made to data reporting requirements 
and CEDS;
    (d) Conducting TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the 
open-source electronic tool and providing training to State staff to 
implement the open-source electronic tool; and
    (e) Supporting a user group of States that are using an open-source 
electronic tool for reporting the IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B 
preschool special education data required under sections 616 and 618 of 
IDEA.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements under Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed 
Priority 2 Common Elements.
    Proposed Priority 2: Technical Assistance To Improve State Capacity 
To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Child Find Data For 
Infants and Toddlers.
    Background: The purpose of this proposed priority is to establish a 
TA center to provide TA to increase the capacity of States to collect, 
report, analyze, and use data available to States to improve their Part 
C child find data and efforts that they report through their Part C 
SPP/APR.
    On October 5, 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report ``Special Education: Additional Data Could Help Early 
Intervention Programs Reach More Eligible Infants and Toddlers'' noting 
variation across racial groups at each step of the identification and 
enrollment process for early intervention services under Part C of IDEA 
(GAO-24-106019)(2023 GAO IDEA Part C Child Find Report).\8\ Based on an 
analysis of data from 16 States, GAO found that the percentage of 
infants and toddlers who engaged in the first two steps (from referred 
to evaluated) differed widely by race. However, the percentage of 
infants and toddlers who engaged in the third to the fourth step (from 
eligible to enrolled) looked similar across races. For example, the 
percentage of infants and toddlers who were referred and subsequently 
received an evaluation ranged from 59 percent for American Indian and 
Alaska Native children to 86 percent for Asian children (a 27 
percentage-point difference). In contrast, the percentage of those 
determined eligible and subsequently enrolled ranged from 91 percent 
for American Indian or Alaska Native children to 95 percent for Asian 
and White children (a four percentage-point difference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The GAO Report and the Department's response concurring with 
the recommendation can be found at www.gao.gov/assets/d24106019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the 2023 GAO IDEA Part C Child Find Report had one 
matter for Congress and one recommendation for the Department, to which 
the Department agreed. GAO recommended that the Department encourage 
all States to use demographic data they already collect to maximize 
children's access to Part C early intervention services. In its 
September 13, 2023 response, the Department noted its plans to 
implement this recommendation. The Department has established that, 
beginning with the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2023 SPP/APR that States 
submit in February 2024, all States should report under SPP/APR child 
find indicators C-5 and C-6 on their root cause analysis of their child 
find efforts by using all data available to the State and not just the 
child find data reported under SPP/APR Indicators C-5 and C-6.\9\ 
Additionally, beginning with the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, a State must report 
this root cause analysis if the State shows slippage in the FFY 2023 
data it reports under SPP/APR indicators C-5 and C-6.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Per the Part C State Performance Plan and Annual Performance 
Report (Part C SPP/APR) General Instructions, ``If a State is 
required to report on the reasons for slippage, then the State must 
include the results of its analysis under the ``Additional 
Information'' section of Indicators 5 and 6.'' Part C State 
Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report (Part C SPP/APR)--
General Instructions--For Federal Fiscal Year 2023 Submission.
    \10\ For the FFY 2023 SPP/APR Indicators C-5 and C-6, the 
Department noted that ``to improve the analysis of whether States 
are identifying children who need services as early as possible, 
States should conduct root cause analyses of child find 
identification rates, including reviewing data (if available) on the 
number of children referred, evaluated, and identified. This root 
cause analysis may include examining not only demographic data (such 
as race and ethnicity data reported under IDEA section 618 and 
Indicators C-5 and C-6), but also other child-find related data 
available to the State (such as geographic location, family income, 
primary language, etc.). The State should report the results of its 
analysis under the ``Additional Information'' section of the 
Indicators C-5 and C-6. Furthermore, if a State is required to 
report on the reasons for slippage, then the State must include the 
results of its analysis under the ``Additional Information'' section 
of the Indicators C-5 and C-6.'' See, https://omb.report/icr/202305-1820-001/doc/131687100.

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

[[Page 13298]]

    Though many State Part C programs already use demographic data on 
infants and toddlers to identify disparities and improve access to Part 
C services, not all States have implemented similar analyses of other 
data that can affect child find identification rates. Analysis of child 
find data that could be relevant would include not only analysis of 
race and ethnicity data reported under IDEA section 618, but would also 
include analysis of other child-find related data available to the 
State (such as geographic location, family income, and primary 
language). Conducting analyses of these other child find-related data 
would enable all State Part C programs to better identify and serve 
infants and toddlers who are eligible for, and need services under, 
Part C of IDEA. To support equitable access to early intervention 
services under Part C of IDEA, this proposed priority would provide TA 
to States as they begin reporting on their root cause analyses using 
all available child find-related data to improve their data analyses, 
child find efforts, and children's access to early intervention 
services under Part C of IDEA.
    Proposed Priority 2:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund TA to increase the capacity 
of States to collect, report, analyze, and use available data to 
improve the Part C child find data they report through their Part C 
SPP/APR.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use available data to improve the Part C child find data (including 
IDEA section 616 Part C data for indicators C5 and C6 and section 618 
Part C data);
    (b) Increased number of States that have the capacity to identify, 
for children served under IDEA Part C, other data they may collect 
(such as number of infants and toddlers: referred; screened; evaluated; 
eligible; and enrolled in early intervention services under Part C) by 
various characteristics of the child, including, at a minimum: race, 
ethnicity, home language, gender, socio-economic status, and geographic 
location;
    (c) Increased number of States that have the capacity to conduct a 
root cause analysis of available child find data to better identify 
disparities among demographic groups and potential barriers to 
enrollment in early intervention services under Part C of IDEA; and
    (d) Increased number of States that have the capacity to use their 
IDEA and non-IDEA Part C child find data to improve the child find 
processes at the State and local program levels.
    In addition to these program requirements, to be considered for 
funding under this proposed priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Proposed Priority 1 
and Proposed Priority 2 Common Elements.
    Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed Priority 2 Common Elements:
    In addition to the program requirements contained in both 
priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the 
following application and administrative requirements, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges associated with early childhood data 
management and data system integration, including implementing early 
childhood data system integration and improvements; enhancing and 
streamlining Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special 
education data systems to respond to critical policy questions; using 
ECIDS for program improvement and compliance accountability for Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education programs; 
reporting high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 
Part C data and section 618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool 
special education data to the Department and the public; and analyzing 
Part C child find data to improve equitable access to Part C early 
intervention services. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating 
the challenges of States to implement effective early childhood data 
management policies and procedures and data system integration 
activities, including integrating early childhood data systems across 
IDEA programs, other early learning programs, and other educational 
programs for school-aged students; linking Part C and Part B preschool 
special education program data; using their Part C and Part B preschool 
special education data systems to respond to critical State-determined 
policy questions for program improvement and compliance accountability; 
and collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part C child find data 
to improve equitable access to Part C early intervention services;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical 
issues and policy initiatives relating to early childhood data 
management and data system integration, data use, data privacy, Part C 
IDEA sections 616 and 618 data, Part C child find data, Part B 
preschool special education data, and Part C and Part B preschool 
special education data systems; and
    (iii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of integrating or linking Part C and Part B preschool special education 
data systems; integrating or linking Part C and/or Part B preschool 
special education data systems with other early learning data systems; 
using Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems to 
respond to critical State-determined policy questions; and collecting, 
reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part C data 
(including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data) 
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data; and
    (2) Improve early childhood data management policies and procedures 
and data system integration activities used to collect, report, and 
analyze high-quality Part C and Part B preschool special education data 
(including Part C child find data); to integrate or link Part C and 
Part B preschool special education data systems as well as integrate or 
link these data with data on children participating in other early 
learning programs and data on school-aged children; and to develop and 
use robust early childhood data systems to answer critical State-
determined policy questions; and indicate the likely magnitude or 
importance of the improvements.
    (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

[[Page 13299]]

    (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, which 
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 
\11\ practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes of these requirements,''evidence-based'' 
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 research on early childhood data management and 
data system integration, and related EBPs; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on 
early childhood data management and data system integration;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\12\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``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,\13\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the State and local levels; and
    (C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with 
OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop 
and implement a coordinated TA plan when the work of the center or 
centers overlaps with the proposed project; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\14\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often 
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship 
between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' 
are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a 
valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to 
policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased 
recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems 
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges 
associated with limited resources to engage in early childhood data 
system integration and enhancement activities that streamline the 
established Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems 
to respond to critical policy questions and to report high-quality IDEA 
data to the Department and the public, which must, at a minimum, 
include providing on-site consultants to the State lead agency (LA) or 
State educational agency (SEA) to--
    (1) Model and document data management and data system integration 
policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the State;
    (2) Develop and adapt tools and provide technical solutions to meet 
State-specific data needs; and
    (3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the 
data management and data system integration work in the future;
    (C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the State LA 
and 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 State and local program and district levels;
    (D) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a 
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data 
quality issues, as measured by OSEP's review of the quality of the IDEA 
sections 616 and 618 data;
    (E) Its proposed plan for assisting State LAs and SEAs to build or 
enhance training systems that include professional development based on 
adult learning principles and coaching;
    (F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., State LAs, SEAs, regional TA providers, 
districts, local programs, families) to ensure that there is 
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to 
support the collection, reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality 
IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data, section 618 
Part C data, and Part C child find data) and IDEA Part B preschool 
special education data as well as early childhood data management and 
data system integration; and
    (G) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with the 
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, Early 
Childhood Technical Assistance Center, other Department-funded TA 
investments, other federally funded TA investments, 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

[[Page 13300]]

priority and to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they 
are involved in a State; and
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\15\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 application and 
administrative 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; 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 to the project and how these allocations are 
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.
    (ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the 
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused 
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget 
period.
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Provide an assurance that the project will--
    (i) Reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the 
third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are conducted 
virtually; and
    (ii) Within 30 days of receipt of the award, participate in a post-
award teleconference between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's 
project director or other authorized representative;
    (4) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (5) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
targeted and intensive TA to States;
    (6) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality 
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
    (7) 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

[[Page 13301]]

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 Priorities and Requirements:
    We will announce the final priorities and requirements in a 
document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final 
priorities and requirements after considering public comments on the 
proposed priorities and requirements 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 these proposed priorities and one or more of 
these requirements, 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) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 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 three 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 entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review 
would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically 
authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each 
case.
    This proposed 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.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. 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 these proposed priorities and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. 
In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would 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 would 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.
    Clarity of the Regulations
    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 these proposed 
priorities and requirements easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed priorities and 
requirements clearly stated?
     Do the proposed priorities and requirements contain 
technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed priorities and 
requirements (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
     Would the proposed priorities and requirements be easier 
to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed priorities and 
requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble 
be more helpful in making the proposed priorities and requirements 
easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed priorities and 
requirements easier to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make these 
proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand, see the 
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR

[[Page 13302]]

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.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that these proposed priorities and requirements would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
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 applicants by the proposed priorities 
and requirements would be limited to paperwork burden related to 
preparing an application and that the benefits would outweigh any costs 
incurred by applicants.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priorities and 
requirements would impose no burden on small entities unless they 
applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining 
whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of 
preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them 
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical 
Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity 
probably would apply only if it determines that the likely benefits 
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
    We believe that these proposed priorities and requirements would 
not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant 
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That 
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the 
absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to 
prepare an application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from 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.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    These proposed priorities and requirements contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028. The proposed priorities and requirements do not 
affect the currently approved data collection.
    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.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-03631 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P