[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41498-41520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09877]



[[Page 41497]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 93

May 13, 2024

Part II





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Chapter II





Comprehensive Centers Program; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 2024 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 41498]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2023-OESE-0209]


Comprehensive Centers Program

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the 
Comprehensive Centers Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.283B. The 
Department may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year 
(FY) 2024 and in later years. The Department establishes these 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to help 
ensure that Comprehensive Centers provide high-quality capacity-
building services to State, regional, Tribal and local educational 
agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities and 
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction for all students.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective June 12, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michelle Daley. Telephone: (202) 
987-1057. 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 Comprehensive Centers Program supports the 
establishment of Comprehensive Centers to provide capacity-building 
services to State educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational 
agencies (REAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools that 
improve educational opportunities and outcomes, close achievement gaps, 
and improve the quality of instruction for all students, particularly 
for groups of students with the greatest need, including students from 
low-income families and students attending schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional 
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
    Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical 
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
    The Department published a notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in 
the Federal Register on January 23, 2024 (89 FR 4228) (the NPP). That 
document contained background information and reasons for proposing the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    Public Comment: In response to the invitation in the NPP, we 
received 45 comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. We discuss substantive issues 
under each priority, requirement, definition, or selection criteria to 
which they pertain. We first discuss general issues and then group 
specific comments according to subject. Generally, we do not address 
technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not 
authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are 
outside the scope of the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. We also describe below additional 
changes the Department made to the priorities and selection criteria 
following internal review.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follow.

General Comments; Priorities

    Comment: One commenter provided broad support for the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, 
particularly noting support for the foci and priorities designed to 
ensure that Comprehensive Centers provide support and assistance to 
schools and students with the greatest need, as well as the focus on 
ensuring that the work of the Centers is responsive to the needs of 
schools, districts, and States by requiring stakeholder engagement and 
needs-sensing activities. The commenter also had several 
recommendations regarding the upcoming Comprehensive Centers 
competition, including ensuring that Centers support each State, 
including rural and Tribal communities, and that the program include a 
unifying body that assists with coordination of efforts across all 
Centers and is nimble enough to address emerging issues and needs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support and feedback from the 
commenter and agree with their recommendations. We believe that the 
recommendations are addressed by the priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, and that no changes are needed in 
that regard. In particular, we note that through Priority 2 titled 
``Regional Centers,'' the Comprehensive Centers program is designed to 
support all States, and its services must address the unique 
educational obstacles faced by underserved populations, including 
students living in rural areas and Tribal students. Through Priority 1 
titled ``National Comprehensive Center,'' we intend to establish and 
implement a unifying National Center with specific requirements for 
coordinating work across all Centers while also reserving resources to 
address emerging needs. Additionally, Program Requirement 8, for all 
Centers, requires an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant 
amount to support emerging needs which ensures that all Centers retain 
flexibility to address needs that may emerge throughout the grant 
cycle.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the language in 
Priority 1 requiring that the approach to capacity-building be driven 
by adult learning strategies and incorporate implementation, 
improvement, and systems change frameworks. The commenter further 
stated that this approach is imperative to the work of the Regional 
Centers and Content Centers and recommended that the same language be 
included in Priorities 2 and 3.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for this 
language and agrees with the commenter that all Centers should 
incorporate in their work adult learning principles and implementation, 
improvement, and systems change frameworks in order to most effectively 
support clients. The importance of this approach to providing high-
quality capacity-building services is not unique to the National 
Center. Accordingly, we are adding this requirement to Priority 2 and 
Priority 3. Additionally, we update the priority language referring to 
adult learning strategies to ``adult learning principles'' to align 
with the language used in the program and application requirements.
    Changes: We have revised Priorities 2 and 3 to include reference to 
adult learning principles and implementation, improvement, and systems 
change frameworks.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the focus on 
continuous improvement throughout the Comprehensive Centers program, 
and particularly in the definition of ``capacity building,'' as used in 
Program Requirement 3 and Application Requirement 4. The commenter also

[[Page 41499]]

recommended that, throughout the priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria, wherever we reference the selection, 
implementation, and scaling up of evidence-based practices or 
approaches, we add reference to ``continuous improvement.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback and support for 
the program's focus on continuous improvement and its inclusion in our 
definition of ``capacity-building services''. We believe that 
continuous improvement is inherently part of implementing evidence-
based practices or approaches. Comprehensive Centers build the capacity 
of their clients to implement evidence-based practices through planning 
and implementing interventions, and in collaboration with Regional 
Educational Laboratories (RELs), studying or evaluating their efficacy, 
and acting on that information to continuously improve practices or 
approaches. In particular, as we note above, we are adding language to 
Priority 2 and Priority 3 on the need for Centers' work to be driven by 
implementation science, improvement science, and systems change 
frameworks, which all include elements of continuous improvement as 
central to successful implementation, improvement, or systems change. 
Accordingly, we believe that, both as proposed and with the additions 
to Priority 2 and Priority 3, the priorities for each Center encompass 
the work of continuous improvement within how we define capacity-
building services, how Centers design capacity-building services, and 
how we prioritize support for implementation of evidence-based 
practices or approaches and, therefore, no further changes are 
necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters expressed support for the inclusion of 
Tribal education in the Comprehensive Centers program. One commenter 
expressed general support for a deeper inclusion of Tribal communities 
and governments, and another provided specific support of the inclusion 
of Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs) as eligible beneficiaries of 
Comprehensive Center services.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the inclusion of Tribal 
communities and governments overall and of TEAs as clients and 
recipients of Comprehensive Center program services specifically.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted the importance of serving the needs of 
immigrant students through the Comprehensive Centers program, including 
in the areas of digital literacy and access.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of 
serving the needs of immigrant students and note that this priority was 
also identified by the Regional Advisory Committees. The Department 
believes that this focus is captured within the scope of the 
priorities. Specifically, Priority 2 requires each Regional Center to 
provide capacity-building services to assist clients and recipients in 
addressing the unique educational obstacles faced by underserved 
populations, including immigrant children and youth. Priority 3 
provides for operation of Content Centers, including a Center in the 
area of English Learners and Multilingualism, which are also likely to 
further serve the needs of immigrant students. Priority 1 also includes 
support for emerging education topics of national importance not being 
met by other federally funded technical assistance (TA) providers, 
which could include emerging topics such as digital literacy and 
access. The Department has added to the examples listed in this 
priority to include support strategies for promoting digital literacy 
and access.
    Changes: The Department has added language to Priority 1 to include 
examples of emerging needs related to digital literacy and access.
    Comments: One commenter noted the importance of non-teacher faculty 
in supporting underserved students, particularly students who are 
migratory children. The commenter suggested that the Department more 
explicitly address how the needs of underserved students, particularly 
those who are migratory children, will be met on an individual level.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback and 
recommendations. Priority 2 requires services to be provided to address 
the unique educational obstacles faced by underserved populations, 
including migratory children. The Program Requirements for all Centers 
require Centers to plan and deliver services in response to educational 
challenges facing students, practitioners, and education system 
leaders, and in developing their annual service plans to ensure 
services are provided to support students and communities with the 
highest needs, including recipients serving student populations with 
demonstrated needs unmet or under-met through other Federal, State, or 
local interventions. We believe these provisions enable Centers to 
provide needed support for specific student populations, including 
students who are migratory.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter emphasized the importance of those working 
within the field of Indian Education to be aware of the treaties 
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes regarding education.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that Comprehensive Centers must 
have appropriate experience and expertise to adequately support their 
clients, including awareness of educational laws, regulations, and 
policies that impact their clients. We note that Priorities 1 and 2, 
for the National and Regional Centers, respectively, include language 
related to the role of the Centers in addressing the unique educational 
obstacles faced by Tribal students. The priorities, requirements, and 
definitions outline several ways in which the Comprehensive Centers 
program grantees may work with TEAs as clients. Additionally, Priority 
2 establishes a Regional Center focusing on serving the Bureau of 
Indian Education. Program Requirement 2 for all Centers further 
requires Centers to develop and implement capacity-building services to 
reflect and address specific client needs and contexts. Application 
Requirement 3 for all Centers requires Centers to demonstrate 
appropriate subject matter expertise, which includes expert knowledge 
of statutory requirements, regulations, and policies related to ESEA 
programs, current education issues, and policy initiatives, as well as 
demonstrated experience in content areas for which they are engaged as 
experts. Finally, the selection criteria evaluate the extent to which 
Regional Centers applicants demonstrate that the proposed approach to 
capacity building would address key areas of identified client need, 
which may include the needs of TEA clients and other clients serving 
Tribal students. In responding to the criteria, applicants are asked to 
demonstrate in-depth knowledge and understanding of the specific 
educational goals and priorities of the Center's clients, including the 
client's demographics and policy contexts. The criterion focused on 
subject matter expertise will also allow the Department to evaluate the 
degree to which applicants have the appropriate subject matter 
expertise and experience to serve their intended clients. The 
Department believes that these combined elements will ensure that 
Comprehensive Centers program grantees have the appropriate experience 
and expertise to support clients in addressing the needs of Tribal 
students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the current work of 
the

[[Page 41500]]

National Center and Regional Center partners related to afterschool and 
summer programming. The commenter also expressed support for the 
emphasis in Priority 2 on supporting clients in implementing, scaling-
up, and sustaining evidence-based practices and interventions to 
improve core instruction. The commenter requested that the Centers work 
to build on current research in the science of learning and development 
to support high-quality afterschool and summer programs.
    Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in assisting SEAs and 
LEAs in supporting afterschool and summer programming. The Department 
supports using current research and successful models in the field to 
ensure all students have access to quality afterschool and summer 
learning opportunities. We believe that work proposed under Priority 2 
and Priority 1 will promote the use of evidence-based practices in key 
initiatives to accelerate academic recovery in math and literacy that 
may include high-impact tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school 
programming, and effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter made suggestions for how Comprehensive 
Centers could better support SEAs in implementing ESEA programs. The 
commenter noted that an important need of the SEAs is improving data 
reporting, including improving capacity for data validation, 
streamlining data systems, planning data collection, communicating 
these requirements to LEAs and schools, and overall data quality. The 
commenter also requested assistance for SEAs in implementing resource 
allocation reviews and in communicating with the Department regarding 
data reporting requirements.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestions 
regarding how the Comprehensive Centers can improve SEA capacity to 
collect and report data, which will improve the SEAs' implementation 
and evaluation of ESEA programs. The Department agrees that the 
Comprehensive Centers, and particularly the Regional Centers, should 
support SEAs with improving their data collection practices and support 
to LEAs. The Department has added language to Priority 2 to include 
support for data collection and reporting activities. The Department 
notes the existing requirements related to consultation with SEA 
leaders in determining the greatest client needs. This would include 
addressing issues identified by the Department and its data reporting 
contractors. The Department additionally supports the suggestion that 
Centers should support resource allocation reviews. As discussed 
elsewhere in this document, the Department has added language to 
Priority 1 and Priority 2 to underscore the importance of supporting 
resource allocation reviews.
    Changes: The Department has added language to Priority 2 to include 
capacity-building services that assist clients and recipients in 
collecting and reporting data on ESEA programs.
    Comment: One commenter noted the important role of the National 
Center and Regional Centers in supporting school support and 
improvement activities, including resource allocation reviews, as 
outlined in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. Additionally, the 
commenter suggested that the Center on Fiscal Equity should also play a 
role in identifying best practices regarding fiscal equity components 
of school improvement support to SEAs and LEAs. The commenter noted a 
report from the Government Accountabilty Office that indicated the need 
for greater support from the Department to assist SEAs and LEAs in 
complying with the school improvement and resource equity requirements 
specified in the section 1111(d) of the ESEA. The commenter noted 
specifically the need for support regarding the inclusion of needs 
assessments, evidence-based interventions, and identifying resource 
inequities in improvement plans and ensuring adequate and equitable 
funding is available to identified schools to carry over improvement 
activities.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support for 
the important role of the National Center, Regional Centers, and Center 
on Fiscal Equity in supporting SEAs and LEAs in meeting school 
improvement requirements under section 1111(d) of the ESEA. The 
Department also appreciates the commenter's support of the Department's 
emphasis on serving (1) recipients with high percentages students from 
low-income families and (2) students attending schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional 
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of 
the ESEA. The Department agrees that the Center on Fiscal Equity has an 
important role to support all Comprehensive Centers in understanding 
and designing services related to the adequate and equitable funding 
for schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or 
targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities 
under section 1111(d) of the ESEA. The Department also notes the 
inclusion and importance of support for resource allocation reviews 
described in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA in Priority 1 and 
Priority 2. In response to the commenter's general feedback, as 
discussed elsewhere in this document, the Department added language to 
emphasize supporting resource allocation reviews in Priority 1 and 
Priority 2, and added language to Priority 3 to signify the important 
role of the Center on Fiscal Equity in supporting resource equity 
requirements.
    Changes: The Department has added language to Priority 1 and 
Priority 2 to include a focus on support for implementing resource 
allocation reviews required in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. 
Additionally, the Department has added language to Priority 3 for the 
Center on Fiscal Equity to include schools implementing comprehensive 
support and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and 
improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the ESEA.

Priority 1--National Comprehensive Center

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department reconsider the 
National Center's role in providing targeted supports and suggested 
instead that the National Center would be more effectively positioned 
to focus on providing universal supports, disseminating the work done 
by other Centers and as a primary coordination point.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from the commenter and agree 
with their emphasis on the importance of the National Center as a point 
of coordination and dissemination for the Comprehensive Centers program 
as a whole. However, we disagree that the National Center should focus 
solely on universal supports and not on providing targeted support. 
Under Priority 1 the National Center will provide subject matter 
expertise on and capacity-building services related to several topics 
of national importance including addressing unique educational 
obstacles faced by rural and Tribal students; implementing and scaling 
up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that improve 
instruction and outcomes in core subjects including math and literacy 
instruction; implementing school improvement and State accountability 
and assessment

[[Page 41501]]

systems; and other emerging needs. While States will work first with 
their Regional Center, it is critical that the National Center, as a 
locus of expertise in these topics, is available to work with other 
Centers when there is a need for cross-regional coordination to provide 
targeted support in the areas in which the National Center has 
significant subject matter expertise. As defined, ``targeted capacity-
building services'' can include, for example, strategic planning 
events, national and regional conferences, learning series, and 
communities of practice. We believe that this type of support is 
critical to the role of the National Center and the goals of the 
program and therefore decline to focus the National Center solely on 
the provision of universal supports.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter provided broad support for the work of the 
existing National Center and noted that creating a centralized hub has 
improved efficiency and coordination in the TA system of the 
Comprehensive Centers Programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for the National 
Center and note that through Priority 1 the Department will continue to 
establish and operate a National Center that will coordinate work 
across the network, among other responsibilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we specify in Priority 1 
that the National Center will support SEAs to conduct resource 
allocation reviews required by section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the importance of providing 
services to support SEAs in implementing resource allocation reviews 
and has added language to emphasize this activity in Priority 1 as an 
example of how the National Center may provide services to support SEAs 
to implement State accountability and assessment systems consistent 
with title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA section 1111(b)-(d)). 
Additionally, we note that the Center on Fiscal Equity will provide 
targeted and universal capacity building services for strengthening 
equitable and adequate resource allocation strategies, including for 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted 
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section 
1111(d) of the ESEA, which may relate to services the National Center 
provides to States implementing this requirement under section 
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. We have updated Priority 3 to reflect 
necessary collaboration with the National Center to support 
coordination of these services.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 1 to highlight activities related 
to resource allocation reviews that an applicant may conduct under this 
priority and have revised Priority 3 to include collaborating with the 
National Center to provide services to meet this requirement.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the focus in Priority 
1 on addressing the unique educational challenges, and improving the 
outcomes, of schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement 
activities or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement 
activities under title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)) and 
their students. This commenter recommended that the Department include 
additional examples of how the National Center may help address these 
needs, including through needs assessments to diagnose challenges and 
resource inequities, identifying and implementing evidence-based 
interventions, and monitoring progress and taking corrective action.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the 
inclusion of activities to support school improvement in Priority 1 for 
the National Center and agrees that the specified activities would be 
acceptable and appropriate strategies to address the unique educational 
challenges and improve outcomes of schools implementing comprehensive 
support and improvement activities, or targeted or additional targeted 
support and improvement activities. Because these activities are 
already allowable under the priority as written, the Department does 
not believe it necessary to revise Priority 1 to include the specified 
examples.
    Changes: None.

Priority 2--Regional Centers

    Comments: Several commenters provided feedback on the allocation of 
funding to Centers, particularly Regional Centers. Specifically, two 
commenters requested information on the Department's approach to 
funding levels for each Center. One commenter emphasized the importance 
of funding each Center commensurate to its project scope and requested 
that the Department provide estimated funding levels for each of the 
proposed Centers. Another commenter requested information on the method 
of allocating funding across each Center and encouraged the Department 
to request additional funding for the program in the future. Another 
commenter generally noted the importance of ensuring sufficient funds 
for each Regional Center to deliver intensive and impactful capacity-
building services. Three commenters suggested specific factors that the 
Department should consider when allocating funds, with two recommending 
that the Department consider the number of States and the geography of 
a region in determining allocations, and one recommending that the 
Department consider the cost of travel.
    Discussion: We appreciate the interest in funding levels from the 
commenters. However, we do not include specific funding estimates in 
the priority for each type of Center. For any fiscal year in which we 
use one of these final priorities, the Notice Inviting Applications 
(NIA) will specify the funding available and estimated for each Center. 
We note that under section 203 of the ETAA, the Department is required, 
when awarding grants to Regional Centers, to establish one Center in 
each of the 10 geographic regions served by the RELs. In addition, the 
Department considers additional factors named in the ETAA when awarding 
grants such as school-age population, proportion of economically 
disadvantaged students, the cost burdens of service delivery in areas 
of sparse population, and the number of schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement activities and targeted support 
and improvement activities. Finally, the Department appreciates the 
commenter's recommendation to request additional funding and will 
consider the needs of the program in its requests for funding in future 
years.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter shared suggestions for alternative 
configurations of Regional Centers, including aligning regions with the 
10 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions, returning to a 
previous Comprehensive Centers model that included Regional Centers and 
``Single State'' Centers, or grouping States with similar priorities 
into regions.
    Discussion: Although we appreciate the commenter's recommendations, 
the ETAA requires the Department to establish at least one Center in 
each of the 10 geographic regions served by the Department's RELs and 
to consider other factors indicated in the ETAA including the school-
age population, the proportion of economically disadvantaged students, 
the increased cost burdens of service delivery in areas of sparse 
population, and the number of schools implementing comprehensive 
support and improvement activities and

[[Page 41502]]

targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of 
the ESEA when establishing regions under this program. We believe the 
proposed regional configuration best meets the statutory intent of this 
program. Additionally, we note that under Priority 1, the National 
Center may conduct targeted capacity-building services, including 
strategic planning events, national and regional conferences, learning 
series, and communities of practice, that convene States not in the 
same region around a topic of shared importance.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for including a Regional 
Center for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the Department's 
inclusion of a Regional Center serving the BIE.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the larger regions 
proposed in Priority 2 compared to the existing regional configuration 
under the Comprehensive Centers program, noting the potential for these 
regions to increase efficiency. One commenter also highlighted the 
closer alignment to the REL regions and the potential for this 
alignment to support coordination and alignment of services and needs 
sensing across both programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support from the commenters and 
feedback on the potential benefits of the revised regional 
configuration in Priority 2.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters expressed support for the focus on 
evidence-based projects and programs. One commenter expressed general 
support for the emphasis on evidence-based learning throughout the 
document. Another commenter noted the importance of selecting, 
implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs in rural and 
smaller, less resourced organizations and school districts.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for promoting 
evidence-based practices in the Comprehensive Centers program, 
including in support of rural and small organizations and districts. 
Additionally, the Department would like to clarify examples of key 
initiatives Centers may focus on in implementing evidence-based 
practices.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 2 to include clarifying changes 
of evidence-based programs, practices, or interventions that focus on 
key initiatives that lead to LEAs and schools improving student 
outcomes.
    Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify how Regional 
Centers should develop cost-effective strategies to make their services 
available to as many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of 
support as possible.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and note that, to maximize 
the impact of public funds, all Regional Centers are expected to 
develop cost-effective strategies to ensure services reach as many 
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of 
support as possible. Applicants may propose strategies for how they 
might accomplish this objective within their regions through their 
approach to capacity building in their response to this priority as 
well as to the Program Requirements 4 and 6 for all Centers. 
Additionally, Regional Centers will partner with the National Center to 
share and disseminate information about Comprehensive Center Network 
(CCNetwork) services, tools, and resources to maximize the reach of the 
CCNetwork across clients and education stakeholders. Although the 
Department believes that applicants are best positioned to identify and 
develop these strategies given their knowledge of the critical needs of 
regional clients, the Department will further describe any plans to 
work with grantees on how to maximize the reach of Comprehensive Center 
services in its Cooperative Agreements with grantees.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise 
Priority 2 to ensure that Regional Centers provide support to SEAs 
implementing resource allocation reviews under section 
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter's recommendation. 
Supporting SEAs in implementing resource allocation reviews is one 
important way that Regional Centers can support schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or 
additional targeted support and improvement activities under section 
1111(d) of the ESEA.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 2 to include a focus on support 
for implementing resource allocation reviews under section 
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA.
    Comment: One commenter supported the Priority 2 requirement to 
ensure Regional Centers support SEAs and LEAs to address corrective 
actions from ESEA program monitoring and recommended that the 
Department specify that services may be provided in this regard at the 
request of the Department, or based on recommendation by the Regional 
Center, in addition to the request of the State.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and 
acknowledge that grantees may benefit from the Department or the 
client's Regional Center recommending or requesting that they receive 
support in addressing corrective actions or results from audit findings 
and ESEA program monitoring conducted by the Department. We believe 
paragraph (4) of Priority 2 permits the Department or a Regional Center 
to make such recommendations and therefore do not believe it is 
necessary to revise the priority to address this specific need.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 2 and noted 
that the requirement for Regional Centers to design services in 
conjunction with State leadership has benefitted the work of Regional 
Centers in the current grant cycle.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support from the commenter and 
feedback on the benefits of the proposed Comprehensive Center service 
delivery model and requirement to develop and implement capacity-
building services in partnership with State and local clients and 
recipients.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3--Content Centers

    Comment: One commenter provided overall support for the priorities, 
including Priority 3, and encouraged the Department to explicitly 
consider ways the field of communication sciences and disorders, 
specifically audiology and speech-language pathology, can support the 
goals of the Comprehensive Centers program. Additionally, the commenter 
provided specific feedback on the importance of audiologists and speech 
language pathologists (SLPs) in relation to the work of the Center for 
English Learners and Multilingualism and the Center for Early School 
Success. Specifically, related to the work of the Center for English 
Learners and Multilingualism, the commenter recommended that the 
Department consider the role of audiologists and SLPs to ensure access 
to interpreting services and engagement. Related to the work of the 
Center for Early School Success, the commenter recommended enhancing 
the focus of services provided by the Center to address caseload 
management for practitioners, such as audiologists and SLPs; rural 
capacity building for accessing school-based services for students who 
already

[[Page 41503]]

qualify under Medicaid; and school-based telepractice.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for the 
priorities and and as to Priority 3, the feedback related to the 
importance of the field of communication sciences both broadly and 
specifically related to the work of the Center for English Learners and 
Multilingualism and the Center for Early School Success. Through the 
Comprehensive Centers program, we aim to improve educational outcomes, 
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all 
students, particularly those with the greatest need. Based on the 
Department's experience administering the program and the feedback from 
the Regional Advisory Committees and others, we believe it is important 
for all Centers, including Content Centers, to consider a broad 
universe of resources, practices, and policies that may support these 
goals. Further, we believe that how Centers focus and deliver capacity-
building services must be driven by their needs-sensing activities with 
clients and recipients and the review of available evidence, and 
therefore, we decline to explicitly add references to the specific 
field of communication sciences and disorders in the priorities. 
Specific to the recommendations related to the Center for Early School 
Success, we believe it is important to maintain the focus on preschool-
third grade learning systems and experiences more broadly to support 
academic, social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development. We 
also note that it is not within the scope of the Comprehensive Centers 
to provide assistance in implementing programs outside of the ESEA; 
however we do require Centers to partner with each other and other 
federally funded technical assistance centers to address client needs 
and note opportunities for the Center for Early School Success to 
coordinate with the Center on Fiscal Equity to support clients and 
recipients in considering how ESEA funds may interact with and 
complement other Federal programs, including Medicaid, to improve 
student opportunities and outcomes and reduce duplication of services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters provided broad feedback on the 
introduction of Content Centers as a priority (Priority 3) and the 
impact on the overall structure and focus of the Comprehensive Centers 
program. Feedback from these commenters was mixed, with some expressing 
support for the inclusion of Content Centers in the Comprehensive 
Centers program and others expressing concern. For those commenters 
that supported Priority 3, some noted that the four identified focus 
areas are important areas of national need, while another expressed 
that the Content Centers promised to bring critical support responsive 
to the needs of States and districts. The commenters who disagreed with 
the inclusion of Content Centers cited concerns related to the impact 
on Comprehensive Center branding, flexibility, and responsiveness. 
Specifically, one such commenter expressed concern that identifying 
focus areas for a five-year cycle was not the best way to respond to 
emerging needs and instead recommended an approach similar to the 
current configuration allowing the National Center and Regional Centers 
flexibility to respond to emerging needs. This same commenter also 
cited a concern with duplication of efforts in previous Comprehensive 
Center cohorts that included Content Centers. Another commenter also 
noted that the Comprehensive Centers program has built familiarity and 
recognition among SEAs and LEAs and shared concerns that changing the 
configuration would harm this brand recognition.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from commenters on the 
inclusion of Priority 3. We agree with the comments supporting the four 
proposed focus areas and on the importance of flexibility, efficiency, 
and responsiveness to the success of the Comprehensive Centers program. 
We also appreciate the commenters' concerns about the proposed impacts 
on the program's brand recognition, service to clients, and ability to 
maximize flexibility and responsiveness to emerging needs or to provide 
efficient, high-quality, relevant, and useful services responsive to 
the needs of clients and recipients. We believe, however, that Priority 
3's approach minimizes these concerns. First, the establishment of the 
Content Centers supports the Comprehensive Center program's ability to 
provide high-quality capacity-building services in identified areas of 
high national need. The four focus areas reflect the recommendations of 
the Regional Advisory Committees and are areas of national need that 
are likely to retain importance to Comprehensive Center clients and 
recipients over the entire five-year project period. Regarding the 
potential impact to the branding of the CCNetwork, we note that the 
National Center has an explicit requirement in Priority 1 to support 
consistent branding, communication, and dissemination of products, 
information, and resources from the CCNetwork and we expect the 
progress made under the current model to continue with this support. 
Additionally, throughout these priorities, requirements, definitions 
and selection criteria, we emphasize the need for the Comprehensive 
Centers to be nimble to adjust to new or emerging areas of need and 
note features of this structure that retain the program's ability to 
address emerging needs, including Priority 1 which requires the 
National Center to address emerging national needs, and Program 
Requirement 8 for all Centers that requires each Center to include an 
annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support 
emerging needs. This is designed to ensure each Center is able to 
remain flexible and responsive to needs that arise throughout the 
project period. We believe that with these elements combined, the 
CCNetwork will be able to provide high-quality, relevant, and useful 
capacity-building services to clients and recipients across the country 
in areas of high national need as well as emerging needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters who disagreed with the inclusion of 
Content Centers cited concerns related to potential confusion of 
clients on how to access services from Centers within the CCnetwork. 
One commenter cited a concern with confusion among clients in previous 
Comprehensive Center cohorts that included Content Centers. Another 
commenter raised concerns that the introduction of these Centers would 
make the process of accessing services more complex for clients.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the 
proposed impacts of including Content Centers on client access to 
services. Regarding potential client confusion, we note that Regional 
Centers will continue to serve as the entry point for States to engage 
with the CCNetwork, and that it will be through the Regional Centers 
that the Content Centers will address specific requests for assistance 
from States within the regions and strengthen Regional Center staff 
knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective practices 
within its specific content area. Content Centers are also required to 
consult with and integrate feedback from the Department, the National 
and Regional Centers in developing their annual service plan to ensure 
targeted and universal services reflect regional and national needs and 
to avoid duplication of services. We also note that the National Center 
has an explicit requirement in Priority 1 to support coordination 
across the

[[Page 41504]]

Regional and Content Centers. We believe these requirements focused on 
consultation, coordination, and collaboration of services, negotiated 
and coordinated with and through Regional Centers, will minimize client 
confusion and provide clear opportunities for Center coordination to 
minimize client burden.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters who disagreed with the inclusion of 
Content Centers cited concerns related to the impact on Comprehensive 
Center efficiency and funding. Specifically, one commenter who did not 
support Priority 3, recommended that if the Department proceeds with 
it, it should further clarify how the Content Centers will interact 
with the Regional Centers and the National Center. Another commenter 
raised concerns that the introduction of these Centers would divert 
funds from the Regional Centers and National Center, which could limit 
their services and ability to respond to emerging needs across the 
network.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the 
proposed impacts on the efficiencies of service delivery to clients, 
namely through the Regional Center and National Center, and concerns 
around our ability to maximize flexibility and responsiveness to 
emerging needs and prevent any diversion of funding from the Regional 
and National Centers. We believe, however, that the approach to 
coordination required of all Centers minimizes these concerns. As 
described above, all Centers are expected to coordinate services, and 
the National and Content Centers must consult with Regional Centers in 
providing services to clients. Priority 1 and Priority 3 further 
provide efficiencies to the CCNetwork, for example the National Center 
will support consistent communication, and dissemination of products, 
information, and resources from the CCNetwork and will facilitate 
collaboration across Centers, creating efficiencies for Regional and 
Content Centers. Additionally, Content Centers will provide subject 
matter expertise in areas of high national need identified by the 
Regional Advisory Committees that all Regional Centers can access and 
benefit from, allowing them to focus their resources on other areas of 
need. The Department acknowledges that the addition of Content Centers 
will result in the reduction of the total amount of program funds 
available to Regional Centers; however, we believe value of services 
aligned to areas of high national need, coupled with the efficiencies 
gained through the resources and support provided by the Content 
Centers and the National Center to the Regional Centers and their 
clients should lessen the impact of these reductions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters that expressed support for the inclusion 
of Content Centers also made recommendations for additional Centers: 
one expressed concern about not having a Center focused on systems 
change and sustainability, though also noted that this topic area could 
be addressed by the National Center; the other commenter recommended 
that the Department add a Center for Rural Schools and Communities.
    Discussion: We agree with the two commenters on the importance of 
systems change and sustainability and on serving rural communities, but 
disagree with the recommendation to create additional Content Centers. 
The Content Center priorities were determined based on careful 
consideration of input from the Regional Advisory Committees on areas 
of national need, as well as other factors including whether the 
Department currently has existing technical assistance investments for 
an identified ESEA program or area of need. Additionally, the 
Department chooses to limit the number of Content Centers to prioritize 
use of program funds for the Regional Centers. The work of supporting 
systems change and sustainability is a core tenet of the Comprehensive 
Centers program and one that we believe is a part of the work of all 
Centers, and should be embedded in the approach to capacity-building 
services. Additionally, as the commenter noted, we believe the National 
Center is well-positioned to provide coordinating support across the 
CCNetwork to support broader systems change, and we believe that the 
current requirements in Priority 1 related to coordination are 
sufficient to carry out this work. We also appreciate and agree with 
the second commenter's feedback on the importance of serving rural 
communities but disagree that creating an additional Content Center is 
needed. Both Priorities 1 and 2 explicitly direct these types of 
Centers to address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural 
students, and Program Requirement 3 for Regional Centers further 
requires that Regional Centers, in developing the annual service plan, 
ensure services are provided to support students and communities with 
the highest needs, including recipients in rural areas. We believe that 
serving rural students is included in the core work of the National and 
all Regional Centers. For these reasons, we believe the existing 
priorities and the requirements combined will allow the Comprehensive 
Center program to fulfill this goal.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed appreciation for the inclusion of 
early learning programs in Priority 3.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support and made 
recommendations regarding the focus of the proposed Center on 
Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce. Specifically, 
several commenters suggested including various specific educator roles 
within the focus of the Center; one commenter recommended the inclusion 
of school counselors, another recommended the inclusion of all 
educators responsible for instruction, including substitute teachers 
and other uncertificated teachers, and a third commenter recommended 
the inclusion of principals and other school leaders as well as 
educators involved in out-of-school time programs, such as 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments related to the 
Center on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce and 
agrees with many of the suggestions provided. The Department did not 
provide a definition of the term ``educator'' in the NPP. We appreciate 
and agree with the feedback of the commenters suggesting that this 
Center should support educators beyond classroom teachers and clarify 
that the Department's intent is for the services of this Center to 
include many types of educators. In response to the feedback, the 
Department has added a definition of ``educator'' that includes 
principals or other school leaders, specialized instructional support 
personnel, (which includes school counselors, SLPs, and other related 
service providers), paraprofessionals, faculty, and others. We believe 
the definition includes substitute teachers, other uncertificated 
teachers, as well as those in out-of-school-time programs. With this 
change, the Department does not believe it is necessary to add more 
specific language to the priority as the definition clarifies that 
these educators are included in the focus of the Center.
    Changes: The Department added a definition of ``educator'' to the 
Definitions section of this NFP.
    Comment: Several commenters provided feedback on the scope and 
focus areas of the Center on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator 
Workforce. One commenter encouraged the Department to support building 
Grow Your Own Programs and

[[Page 41505]]

registered apprenticeship programs that include audiologists and SLPs. 
Another commenter made several recommendations relating to support for 
Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs), including that the Center should 
support EPPs and their district partners, identifying specific 
potential partners, to design, launch, and continually improve pathways 
from recruitment through retention and build the capacity of EPPs and 
district leaders to facilitate programs grounded in more equitable 
outcomes for teachers and P-12 students. Another commenter recommended 
that the Center support preparation, integration, and ongoing 
development of substitute teachers.
    Discussion: The Department strongly supports a focus for this 
Center on supporting high-quality EPPs. The primary clients for 
Comprehensive Centers are defined as SEAs, LEAs, REAs, TEAs and 
schools; most operators of EPPs would not be among the direct clients 
of Comprehensive Center program services. However, the Department does 
envision that the Center may support SEAs, LEAs, and their partners in 
addressing educator shortages, and that this collaboration with clients 
and their partners could include EPPs or other partners critical to the 
focus on strengthening and supporting the educator workforce. The 
Department believes this could include programs that focus on all types 
of educators, including audiologists and SLPs, based on demonstrated 
needs. Additionally, the Department appreciates the critical importance 
of substitute teachers in discussions of the educator workforce and 
agrees that the work of the Center to support State and local clients 
could include a focus on ensuring adequate pipelines of and support for 
substitute teachers, as appropriate to the needs of the client.
    Changes: The Department is adding language to Priority 3 to clarify 
that the Center may work with SEAs, LEAs, and their partners, such as 
EPPs, regional workforce boards, labor unions, etc. in addressing 
educator shortages and providing all students with highly qualified 
educators across the P-12 continuum.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center on Strengthening 
and Supporting the Educator Workforce should provide tools and 
resources, professional development, and technical assistance that 
brings the science of learning into teaching practice, with an equity-
centered focus on early literacy, mathematics, and the identification 
and use of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). Additionally, 
this commenter indicated that the Center should work on strengthening 
and supporting the educator workforce in ways that also accelerate 
progress on national priorities such as literacy and math attainment, 
the use of HQIM, the diversification of the teacher pipeline, and 
support for multilingual learners.
    Discussion: The Department notes the importance of assisting Center 
clients obtain resources and professional development that will enhance 
instructional techniques, and the identification and use of HQIMs; 
however, we note that supporting instruction generally falls within the 
Priority 1 focus on evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that improve instruction and outcomes in core subjects, 
including math and literacy instruction, and decline the recommendation 
for inclusion in Priority 3. The Department believes that this Center 
may support diversifying teacher pipelines within the priority as 
written. Additionally, we note the Center on English Learners and 
Multilingualism will provide support related to meeting the needs of 
multilingual learners.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted recent data that show lower per pupil 
expenditures for students attending schools identified for improvement 
and recommended that the Department updated Priority 3 to ensure 
adequate and equitable school funding strategies for schools identified 
for support and improvement. The commenter recommended to add language 
to Priority 3 for the Center on Fiscal Equity to ensure that in 
prioritizing supports for students and communities with the greatest 
need, the Department include a focus on schools implementing 
comprehensive, targeted, and additional targeted support and 
improvement plans under section 1111(d) of the ESEA.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter on the 
importance of ensuring adequate and equitable school funding strategies 
for schools identified for support and improvement. The Department 
accepts the recommendation to include specific language emphasizing 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted 
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section 
1111(d) of the ESEA in defining how the Center on Fiscal Equity should 
prioritize supports for students and communities with the greatest 
need.
    Changes: The Department added language to Priority 3 for the Center 
on Fiscal Equity to include schools implementing comprehensive support 
and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and 
improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the ESEA.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Although we did not receive related comments, in 
reviewing the final priorities, the Department identified a need to 
further clarify the focus of the Center on Early School Success to help 
ensure high-quality applications. The Department clarifies that the 
work of this Center should focus on supporting success in early 
elementary grades, which includes successful preschool to kindergarten 
transitions, success of students in early elementary grades in core 
subjects in order to meet challenging State academic standards, and 
engaging with parents and families in supporting student attendance in 
the early grades.
    Changes: The Department has revised the priority for the Center on 
Early School Success to further clarify how it defines experiencing 
success in early learning and achievement.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In reviewing the final priorities, the Department 
identified a need to further clarify the focus of the English Learners 
and Multilingualism to help ensure high-quality applications. The 
Department clarifies that in meeting the needs of English Learners, the 
work of this Center should include support beginning with early 
language acquisition and development to ensure the needs of all 
students who are English Learners are met.
    Changes: The Department has revised the priority for the The Center 
on English Learners and Multilingualism to further clarify how this 
Center might meet the needs of English Learners.

Program Requirements

Program Requirements for All Centers

    Comments: One commenter requested that we clarify the discussion in 
the background of the Program Requirements section regarding the 
requirements on full-time equivalency for Directors, Co-Directors, and 
key personnel. The commenter asked whether having two co-directors with 
a .5 FTE each, totaling 1.0 FTE across both Co-Directors, would meet 
the program requirements.
    Discussion: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify these 
requirements. Under Requirement 9 for the National Center, the Center 
must have a minimum of 1 FTE for the Director or two Co-Directors at a 
minimum of 0.75 FTE each. Under Program Requirement 8 for Regional

[[Page 41506]]

Centers, each Center must have one Director at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or 
two Co-Directors of 0.5 FTE each. Additionally, we are adding an 
equivalent Program Requirement 7 for Content Centers to require one 
Director at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or two Co-Project Directors at a 
minimum of 0.5 FTE each. This new provision will help ensure that the 
FTE requirements align with the scope of work for the Content Centers 
and ensure sufficient leadership capacity for operation and effective 
coordination and collaboration of the Centers.
    Changes: We have revised the Program Requirement for Content 
Centers to include the FTE requirement for Directors and Co-Directors.
    Comments: One commenter provided broad feedback on the program 
requirements related to full-time equivalency of Directors or Co-
Directors for the National and Regional Centers. The commenter 
recommended the requirements not prescribe specific FTE expectations 
for Center leadership given budget restrictions and the need for 
flexibility in the staffing model, particularly for smaller centers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from the commenter related 
to the FTE requirements. However, we disagree with the recommendation 
to forgo designating specific FTE requirements. Based on our experience 
administering the Comprehensive Centers program, we believe that the 
FTE requirements currently outlined in Requirement 9 for the National 
Center and Requirement 8 for Regional Centers align with the scope of 
work for the Comprehensive Centers program and ensure sufficient 
leadership capacity for operation and effective coordination and 
collaboration of the Centers. We encourage Centers to maximize 
flexibility within these requirements to ensure Center leadership is 
staffed at a level sufficient for achieving the goals of its assigned 
projects and responsibilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter provided feedback on the discussion in the 
background of the Program Requirements section regarding the 
requirement that all personnel in key leadership and service delivery 
roles be staffed as close to full-time equivalency as practical. The 
commenter expressed concern with the focus on full-time equivalency, 
particularly for staff in service delivery roles, given the challenges 
that single-project staffing can raise for long-term staff stability 
and recommended removing a requirement for reaching close to full-time 
equivalency for staff in service delivery roles.
    Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarifying these 
requirements. Program Requirement 9 for the National Center, Program 
Requirement 8 for Regional Centers, and Program Requirement 7 for 
Content Centers only discuss full-time equivalency minimums for 
Directors and Co-Directors and do not establish specific requirements 
for other staff in service delivery roles. The requirements do state 
that key personnel must be able to provide services at the intensity, 
duration, and modality appropriate to achieving agreed-upon milestones, 
outputs, and outcomes described in annual service plans. Additionally, 
Program Requirement 5 for all Centers requires Centers to ensure that 
personnel are staffed at a level sufficient for achieving the goals of 
assigned projects and responsibilities. Although we do not specify a 
required staffing level for general project personnel, to help ensure 
that applicants have carefully considered the staffing level needed for 
the success of their proposed project, we are revising the relevant 
selection criterion under Quality of Project Design so that applicants 
have the opportunity to describe, and the Department has the 
opportunity to assess, their approach to addressing these requirements.
    Changes: We have revised the selection criterion under Quality of 
Project Design for the personnel management system to include the 
extent to which the project is staffed at a level sufficient for 
achieving the goals of its proposed projects and responsibilities.
    Comments: One commenter expressed the importance of considering how 
physical resources are distributed among students and how access to 
digital resources may be an effective means of providing enriching 
materials to underserved students through the Comprehensive Centers 
Program.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to ensure 
services focus on promoting student access to educational resources. 
Under Program Requirement 3 for the Regional Centers, Centers must 
ensure services are provided to support students and communities with 
the highest needs. Needs are determined through consulting with a broad 
range of stakeholders, outlined in Program Requirement 2 for Regional 
Centers. We believe these requirements permit Centers to focus services 
on promoting access to educational resources for students with the 
highest needs within their regions, as determined by and with the 
communities they serve. In addition, Priority 1 emphasizes the 
implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions that address other emerging education topics of 
national importance that are not being met by another federally funded 
provider (e.g., evidence-based practices in the use of education 
technology), thus providing support across Regions for services that 
may address such needs identified by multiple States across regions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested information related to the 
program performance measures referenced in the proposed Program 
Requirements for all Centers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment requesting information about 
the program performance measures. The final program performance 
measures were established in the 2019 NFP. The final performance 
measures will additionally be included in the NIA.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested that the Department strengthen 
the requirements and selection criteria for the Comprehensive Centers 
program by specifying an evaluation requirement for each Center in line 
with 34 CFR 75.210 General selection criteria, as well as participation 
in a national evaluation. The commenter shared that a clear evaluation 
requirement would provide distinction among similar terms related to 
the required performance management systems and processes as written in 
the Program Requirements for all Centers and the Selection Criteria 
under Quality of Project Design.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and 
request for clarification of the proposed program and application 
requirements related to performance management and evaluation. The 
Department believes that proposed program requirements are aligned to 
34 CFR 75.210 as evidenced by the requirement for Centers to develop 
and implement an effective performance management system that 
integrates continuous improvement and summative evaluation methods to 
monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones 
to measure the reach, use, and impact of the services being delivered. 
This integrated approach will help ensure capacity-building services 
are implemented as intended and desired results are achieved. The 
performance management system must also include strategies to report on 
defined program performance measures. Additionally, as the commenter 
notes, Centers are required to participate in a national

[[Page 41507]]

evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program as described in section 
204 of the ETAA. To clarify the intent that Centers integrate best 
practices in continuous improvement to manage and evaluate project 
performance to provide performance feedback and permit periodic 
assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes, we have 
added language to explicitly include evaluation in the proposed 
performance management system as defined.
    Changes: We have revised the program requirement and application 
requirements for all Centers and aligned selection criteria language, 
under Quality of Project Design, to reference evaluation as part of a 
performance management and evaluation system.

Requirements for National Comprehensive Center

    Comments: Two commenters provided feedback on Program Requirement 9 
for the National Center related to the requirement that the National 
Center is staffed with one Director at a minimum 1.0 FTE or two Co-
Directors at .75 FTE. One commenter recommended decreasing the FTE 
requirements for the National Center to a minimum .75 Director or 1.0 
FTE split across two Co-Directors, in alignment to the requirement for 
Regional Centers. The other commenter agreed that the FTE requirements 
should be higher for the National Center leadership and recommended 
that the FTE requirements be increased to a minimum of 1.5 FTE total 
for Center leadership but that this could be achieved through various 
leadership roles such as Director and Co-Director, two Co-Directors, or 
a Director and a Deputy Director.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback from the commenters related 
to the FTE requirements for the National Center. However, we disagree 
with the recommendations to revise the FTE requirements. Based on our 
experience administering the Comprehensive Center program, we believe 
that the FTE requirements currently outlined in Requirement 9 for the 
National Center align with the significant scope of work assigned to 
the National Comprehensive Center and that a reduction as recommended 
by the first commenter would not provide sufficient leadership capacity 
for effective coordination and collaboration of the CCNetwork. Related 
to the comment on increasing the minimum FTE to 1.5 to be shared across 
leadership roles, we appreciate the emphasis on ensuring adequate 
leadership capacity for the National Center, especially considering its 
multifaceted responsibilities, and agree with the spirit of the 
recommendation. However, we believe that the requirement as written 
already provides applicants the flexibility to propose a 1.5 FTE across 
two Co-Directors if desired, or the option of one full-time Director 
and a Deputy Director at less than .75 FTE. We believe that providing 
this flexibility will allow applicants to design a staffing model 
aligned to their budget while still ensuring sufficient leadership 
capacity commensurate with the complexity of the work scope of the 
National Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted support for the role of the National 
Center to coordinate and support the Regional Comprehensive Centers. 
The commenter recommended requiring the National Center to set aside a 
percentage of annual funding to support dissemination of Regional 
Center strategies, tools, and resources.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's support for 
the important function of the National Center to support Regional 
Centers, as well as its responsibility to disseminate information and 
resources from all Centers within the CCNetwork. Accordingly, Program 
Requirements 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the National Center require the 
National Center to implement such support and dissemination activities, 
and Program Requirement 10 for the National Center requires it to 
reserve a portion of its budget to address these requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked how the Department defines ``fidelity 
measures'' in the annual service plan as referenced in Program 
Requirement 1 for all Centers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request to clarify how 
the Department defines the term fidelity measures referenced in Program 
Requirement 1. The Comprehensive Centers program has established 
performance measures for the purposes of reporting under 34 CFR 75.110. 
Measure 3 evaluates the extent to which Comprehensive Centers 
demonstrate that capacity-building services were implemented as 
intended, which serves as a fidelity measure. This term is derived from 
implementation science and should help Centers understand whether 
services implemented as designed produce the desired capacity-building 
outcomes. While the Department will provide guidelines to grantees on 
reporting performance measures, we believe applicants are best 
positioned to propose their own measures of implementation fidelity, 
for example, in responding to Application Requirement 5 to present a 
logic model for the project.
    Changes: None.

Requirements for Regional Centers

    Comments: Four commenters provided feedback on Program Requirement 
8 for Regional Centers. Under this requirement, the grantee must be 
located in the region the Center serves and the Director(s) and key 
personnel must be able to provide on-site services. Two commenters 
expressed support for requiring locally based staff, with one commenter 
recommending that the Director or Co-Directors be located in the region 
the Center serves, and another noting the importance of local personnel 
to ensure the needs of underserved students are met by the program. Two 
other commenters did not support the location requirements, noting the 
evolution of and ability to maximize remote work. One of these 
commenters noted that they did not think it was important for a 
Director to be physically located in the region; the other recommended 
that the requirement that grantees be located in the region the Center 
serves be eliminated.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support and feedback from the 
commenters regarding the requirement that Regional Centers be located 
in the region they serve. We also appreciate the commenters raising the 
flexibilities enabled through virtual and remote work and agree that 
Regional Centers may benefit from employing personnel outside of a 
specific geographic region. Based on the Department's experience 
administering the program, we believe it is important for each Regional 
Center to establish a presence in the region served, which includes 
having a physical presence in the region and ensuring staff are able to 
provide on-site services to recipients and clients. This approach 
supports Regional Center leadership and teams to have experiential 
awareness and context of the regions they serve and minimizes, to the 
extent practicable, costs and resources related to travel to support 
clients geographically distant from their locations when serving States 
in a region. Having personnel available to provide on-site services in 
the region is instrumental in building connections, understanding local 
contexts, and ensuring that the Center's efforts are responsive and 
aligned to the needs of the region served. However, we note that 
Requirement 8 does not require that all Center staff are physically 
based in the geographic region. We believe that the requirement as 
written provides Centers with appropriate flexibility

[[Page 41508]]

regarding geographic residency of staff while still ensuring adequate 
presence within the region served to support regional service delivery. 
As such, we decline to make changes in response to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification on language in the 
background of the Program Requirements section discussing requirements 
for Regional Centers to share information and disseminate effective 
practices outside their respective regions.
    Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarifying requirements 
of Regional Centers to share information outside their regions. We note 
that we do not include a background section in the NFP. Therefore, we 
are not making any changes in response to these comments. However, we 
wish to clarify that we believe the Centers will benefit by learning 
from each other and that program requirements established in this 
document for the National Center to develop, and for all Centers to 
participate in, peer learning opportunities will meet this aim.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested further clarification on how 
cross-region efforts would be carried out.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment and need for clarification. 
We note several elements of Priority 1 that establish responsibility 
with the National Center to implement effective strategies for 
coordinating with the Regional Centers and Content Centers to assess 
educational needs; coordinate common areas of support across Centers; 
share and disseminate information about CCNetwork services, tools, and 
resources to maximize the reach of the CCNetwork across clients and 
education stakeholders, among other responsibilities. Program 
Requirements for the National Center further describe the National 
Center's responsibilities, including to design and implement 
communications and dissemination vehicles for the CCNetwork, develop 
peer learning opportunities for Center staff, and to collect and share 
information about services provided through the CCNetwork for the 
purpose of coordination, collaboration, and communication across 
Centers and other providers. Additionally, the National Center must 
design and implement robust needs-sensing activities and processes to 
consult with and integrate feedback from the Department, Regional and 
Content Centers, to explore areas of national need that may be 
addressed through targeted and universal capacity-building services in 
its own service plan, or to inform the work of other Centers. 
Additionally, requirements for the Regional and Content Centers support 
their dedication of resources to collaboration and coordination with 
the National Center and their participation in peer learning 
opportunities to support cross-regional continuous improvement and 
evidence building within the CCNetwork. We believe the priorities and 
requirements provide sufficient guidance on the Department's 
expectations regarding cross-regional collaboration and the 
responsibilities of each Center within the CCNetwork to support and 
participate in those efforts to achieve the stated goals of the 
program. The Cooperative Agreement will further outline specific 
requirements for grantees regarding cross-regional collaboration.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that due to the reorganization of 
some State agencies, there may be more than one center of education 
leadership in States, resulting in the need to identify additional 
members of State leadership to consult on Center needs-sensing 
activities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback regarding the 
variety of educational leadership models across States. We believe the 
program requirements as written support flexible engagement with 
multiple State leadership models. Program Requirement 2 for Regional 
Centers requires Centers to consult with a broad range of stakeholders, 
including chief State school officers (CSSOs) and other SEA leaders, 
and integrate their feedback in developing the annual service plan. We 
also note that Program Requirement 4 for all Centers requires Centers 
to develop and implement a stakeholder engagement system to regularly 
communicate, engage, and coordinate across organizational levels 
(Federal, State, and local) and facilitate regular engagement of 
stakeholders involved in or affected by proposed services, which would 
include education leaders in each State. Finally, we note that the ETAA 
requires Centers to have an advisory board that is composed of the 
CSSOs, or such officers' designees or other State officials, in each 
State served by the Center who have primary responsibility under State 
law for elementary and secondary education in the State, and that in 
the case of a State in which the chief executive officer has the 
primary responsibility under State law for elementary and secondary 
education in the State, the chief executive officer shall consult, to 
the extent permitted by State law, with the SEA in selecting additional 
members of the board. We believe these provisions provide adequate 
flexibility for Comprehensive Centers to consult with and include State 
education leaders in determining the needs and priorities for each 
Regional Center.
    Changes: None.

Application Requirements

Application Requirements for All Centers

    Comments: Two commenters discussed the overall number of and 
breadth of the requirements, priorities, definitions, and selection 
criteria. Both commenters suggested that the Department provide 
applicants with guidance on how to organize their applications.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' feedback. The Department 
will provide pre-application technical assistance to applicants that 
includes suggestions for organizing applications and overviews how 
selection criteria will be used to evaluate responses to the program 
priorities and application requirements. Additionally, the Department 
notes several changes to the selection criteria, described in the next 
section, to more clearly align them to specific priority elements and 
requirements. For example, the Department is revising the application 
requirements regarding the applicant's approach to capacity-building to 
more clearly align the requirement to the relevant priorities and 
selection criteria by clarifying how applicants may organize their 
application narratives in response to these criteria.
    Changes: We have revised the application requirements and selection 
criteria to more clearly align with each other, the priorities, and the 
program requirements.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department establish a 
firm page limit for the application narrative and provide the level of 
detail expected in five-year plans and other elements of the 
application.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback regarding the 
establishment of a page limit and detailed guidelines for the proposed 
application narrative. The Department agrees that it is important to 
assist applicants in understanding expectations for detail in and 
length of its proposal. It is not the Department's practice to 
establish page limits for discretionary grant applications, however a 
recommended page limit will be provided in the NIA to assist

[[Page 41509]]

applicants in their response. Pre-application technical assistance will 
be provided to review the requirements and provide guidance to 
applicants. For applicant resources for Department grants generally, 
please visit: https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/training-management.html.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification on Application 
Requirement 5 for all Centers, which requires applicants to present a 
logic model explaining how the project is likely to improve or achieve 
relevant and expected outcomes. The commenter requested clarification 
on the scope of the logic model and whether it should be focused 
broadly on the Comprehensive Center program or if applicants should 
provide a logic model for each project within their specific proposal.
    Discussion: We clarify that Application Requirement 5 requires each 
applicant to provide one logic model relevant to their proposed project 
as a part of their application for funding to demonstrate their 
approach to responding to the relevant priority of the Comprehensive 
Centers program. The application requirement does not include a 
separate logic model for each activity within the project proposal.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that potential 
applicants could use data from the current national evaluation of the 
Comprehensive Centers program to their advantage in the upcoming 
competition.
    Discussion: The Institute of Education Science is overseeing the 
current national evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers, which will be 
completed later in 2024. The data from this evaluation were primarily 
self-reported perceptions of how the work was organized and the 
challenges faced during what was a very unusual period, 2020-2022, with 
the objective of providing systemwide insights for program improvement. 
Even though data were collected from and about each Center, none of 
these data present a conflict of interest or could give an applicant an 
advantage in the new competition. Furthermore, all contractors 
conducting work for IES are legally bound to uphold federal privacy and 
confidentiality laws and requirements.
    Changes: None.

Application Requirements for Regional Centers

    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether 
applicants for Regional Centers were required to submit five-year 
service plans or 1-year service plans and whether a plan must be 
submitted for each State within a region.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request to clarify how 
annual service plans should be included in applications to this 
program. Applicants should detail an approach to capacity building for 
the five-year project period that includes a description of the 
applicant's approach to addressing the priority to which they are 
applying, as indicated in the application requirements, including, for 
example, the educational challenges proposed to be addressed, the scope 
of services proposed by the project, potential partners, and the 
specific State and local outcomes that would represent significant 
achievement toward the program's desired outcomes. In the case of 
applicants for Regional Centers, the approach should also include the 
proposed approach to intensive capacity-building services, including 
identification of intended recipients, as specified in the Application 
Requirements for Regional Centers. These aspects of the applicant's 
proposed approach will be reviewed and scored under the selection 
criteria for the Approach to Capacity Building. The Department notes 
that annual service plans referenced under the Program Requirements for 
all Centers will be established post-award, and details and 
requirements for such service plans will be further detailed in 
Cooperative Agreements with grantees.
    Changes: We have revised the Application Requirements 1 and 2 for 
all Centers to clarify that a proposal should detail the applicant's 
approach to capacity building under the priority for which they are 
applying.

Definitions

    Comment: One commenter expressed general support for the proposed 
definition for the term capacity building and in particular the four 
proposed dimensions of capacity building: human, organizational, 
policy, and resource capacity building. The commenter elaborated with 
specific examples of the importance of human and organizational 
capacity building, particularly in their work in rural communities.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the 
definition of capacity building as well as the commenter's discussion 
of their experience related to this work in rural communities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter raised questions and concerns regarding the 
definitions of the terms client and recipient. The commenter expressed 
concern that under these definitions, organizations that may 
potentially qualify as clients or recipients would expand the scope of 
work of the Comprehensive Centers beyond that described in the ETAA. 
The commenter specifically questioned whether, based on these 
definitions, Centers could work with public and/or private colleges and 
universities as clients or recipients.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern and 
recommendations to clarify the types of organizations that may be 
clients or recipients of services under the Comprehensive Center 
program. We emphasize that the ETAA authorizes Centers to provide 
services to SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools in the region where such 
center is located, and that the Department has clarified in prior 
competitions that it considers REAs to include TEAs, as is further 
clarified in the proposed definitions. The Department further clarifies 
that private or public colleges and universities, to the extent that 
they are not eligible to enter into agreement for negotiated capacity-
building services, would not be direct clients of capacity-building 
services provided by the Centers, though they may be recipients of 
services if, for example, they are included as partners of the primary 
clients being served (e.g., a university partnering with an SEA, LEA, 
or other client on establishing educator preparation pathways to 
address identified needs related to educator shortages) or if they 
choose to participate in universal technical assistance that is open to 
broader public participation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of how the 
Department defines the term performance management and suggested 
narrowing of the term as it appears to be used inconsistently in the 
NPP.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request for clarification 
of the term performance management. We consider performance management 
to include activities that provide performance feedback and permit 
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes to 
contiuously improve the quality and efficacy of service delivery. We 
have aligned Program Requirement 3 for all Centers requiring a 
performance management and evaluation system with Application 
Requirement 7 and the aligned selection criteria under Quality of 
Project Design to clarify our intent and allow applicants to describe 
how

[[Page 41510]]

they would establish and implement a performance and evaluation system. 
As evidenced in the proposed program requirement, we believe that 
effective performance management and evaluation integrates ongoing, 
continuous improvement and summative evaluation methods to monitor 
progress towards agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones to 
measure the reach, use, and impact of the services being delivered.
    Changes: We have revised Program Requirement 3 for all Centers, 
Application Requirement 7, and aligned selection criteria under Quality 
of Project Design to describe the performance management and evaluation 
system.
    Comments: One commenter expressed general support for the 
Department's definition of the term outcomes particularly to include 
short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for and feedback 
on the definition of the term outcomes.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria

    Comment: One commenter asked for point values assigned to the 
selection criteria.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's feedback and note that we 
will assign specific point values for selection criteria in the NIA. 
Additionally, we will provide pre-application technical assistance that 
addresses the selection criteria, and their point values, by which 
proposals will be evaluated.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters provided feedback on the overall breadth 
and complexity of the selection criteria. One commenter recommended the 
Department streamline the selection criteria to focus on the most 
critical priorities. Another commenter noted the complexity of the 
criteria and potential confusion regarding which criteria apply to each 
priority (National, Regional, or Content Centers). One commenter shared 
concern about the overall complexity of priorities and requirements, 
and made recommendations for areas to clarify, including streamlining 
selection criteria to focus on the most critical priorities and 
requirements, providing more clear organization to the criteria, and 
offering a clear template to guide applicants' response in their 
applications.
    Discussion: In response to the commenters' feedback, we are 
revising the selection criteria to more clearly align them with the 
priorities and requirements. Specifically, the Department revises the 
criterion on Approach to Capacity Building for all Centers and 
specifically for the National, Regional, and Content Centers, to align 
the criterion with individual elements of each priority. Additionally, 
the Department is revising the Quality of Project Design criterion for 
the National Center to focus on the requirements related to 
coordinating and overseeing the work of the CCNetwork. Further, the 
Department will clearly indicate in the NIA which selection criteria 
apply to applications for a Regional, Content, or National Center and 
assigns point values to each criterion. Additionally, we will offer 
pre-application technical assistance that includes guidance on how 
applicants can organize their applications to align with the selection 
criteria.
    Changes: We have revised the selection criteria for Approach to 
Capacity Building and Quality of Project Design to more clearly align 
them with the priorities and requirements.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how the selection 
criteria would apply to annual service plans required under the Program 
Requirements for all Centers.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request for clarification 
on how selection criteria will be applied to annual service plans and 
agree that language under the program requirements, application 
requirements, and selection criteria should be clarified as it relates 
to how annual plans should be included in applications to this program. 
We clarify above that applicants to this program should detail an 
approach to capacity building for the five-year project period as 
indicated in the application requirements. The applicant's proposed 
approach will be reviewed and scored under the selection criteria for 
the Approach to Capacity Building. Additionally, we will provide pre-
application technical assistance that explains how the selection 
criteria align to the priorities and requirements.
    Changes: We revised the selection criteria under the Approach to 
Capacity Building to further clarify how they will be used to evaluate 
the extent to which applicants meet certain aspects of the priority for 
each Center through their proposed approach to capacity building 
detailed in their application.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how the term 
capacity-building plan referenced in the selection criteria for 
Regional Centers and the National Center aligned to other terms and 
requirements in the NPP, specifically noting references elsewhere in 
the selection criteria to ``technical assistance plans'' and whether 
these terms are interchangeable.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter raising the question 
regarding how the term capacity-building plan is used in the NPP in 
relation to other similar terms and agree that clarification is needed. 
To simplify the language, and more clearly link the program and 
application requirements to the selection criteria, we have replaced 
references to capacity-building and technical assistance plans with 
reference to the applicant's approach to capacity building.
    Changes: We have revised the Approach to Capacity Building 
selection criteria for the National Center, Regional Centers, and 
Content Centers to streamline the language.
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification between subject 
matter, content, and technical expertise.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request for 
clarification. In the selection criteria under Subject Matter and 
Technical Assistance Expertise, the Department differentiates subject 
matter expertise and technical assistance expertise as aligned to the 
relevant Application Requirements for all Centers. The Subject Matter 
and Technical Assistance Expertise selection criteria acknowledge the 
importance of these two areas of expertise, and we agree that the 
criteria should further clarify the distinction between the two types 
of expertise. As defined in this document, ``subject matter expertise'' 
may include expert knowledge of statutory requirements, regulations, 
and policies related to ESEA programs, current education issues, and 
policy initiatives, as well as demonstrated experience in content areas 
for which an individual is engaged as an expert including, for example, 
publishing in peer-reviewed journals, presenting at conferences, and 
relevant experience in operating and administering ESEA programs in 
State and local educational systems. Expertise in providing technical 
assistance may include expertise in the current research on adult 
learning principles, coaching, and implementation science.
    Changes: We have revised the selection criteria under Subject 
Matter and Technical Assistance Expertise to clarify the alignment of 
these terms to the application requirements.

Final Priorities

    Priority 1--National Comprehensive Center.
    Projects that propose to establish a National Center to (1) provide 
high-quality, high-impact technical assistance and capacity-building

[[Page 41511]]

services to the Nation that are designed to improve educational 
opportunities, educator practice, and student outcomes and (2) 
coordinate the work of the CCNetwork to effectively use program 
resources to support evidence use and the implementation of evidence-
based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices to close opportunity gaps 
and improve educational outcomes, particularly accelerating academic 
achievement in math and literacy for all students, and particularly for 
groups of students with the greatest need, including students from low-
income families and students attending schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional 
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of 
the ESEA, in a manner that reaches and supports as many SEAs, REAs, 
TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as possible.
    The National Center must design and implement an effective approach 
to providing high-quality, useful, and relevant universal, targeted, 
and, as appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive 
capacity-building services that are likely to achieve desired recipient 
outcomes. The approach must be driven by adult learning principles and 
incorporate implementation, improvement, and systems change frameworks, 
and must promote alignment across interconnected areas of need, 
programs, and agency systems.
    The National Center must implement effective strategies for 
coordinating and collaborating with the Regional Centers and Content 
Centers to assess educational needs; coordinate common areas of support 
across Centers; communicate about the work of the CCNetwork, including 
sharing and disseminating information about CCNetwork services, tools, 
and resources to maximize the reach of the CCNetwork across clients and 
education stakeholders; coordinate with other federally funded 
providers regarding the work of the CCNetwork and help clients navigate 
available support; and support the selection, implementation, scale-up, 
and dissemination of evidence-based practices that will improve 
educational opportunities and outcomes, particularly academic 
achievement in math and literacy, and close achievement gaps for all 
students, particularly for groups of students with the greatest need, 
including students from low-income families and students attending 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted 
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section 
1111(d) of the ESEA.
    Services must address: common high-leverage problems identified in 
Regional Center service plans (as outlined in the Program Requirements 
for the National Center); findings from finalized Department monitoring 
reports or audit findings; implementation challenges faced by States 
and LEAs related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of 
schools designated for improvement; needs related to closing 
opportunity and achievement gaps; needs to improve core academic 
instruction; and emerging education topics of national importance.
    The National Center must provide universal and targeted capacity-
building services that demonstrably assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and 
Regional Center clients and recipients to--
    (1) Implement approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans, with 
preference given to implementing and scaling evidence-based programs, 
practices, and interventions that directly benefit entities that have 
high percentages or numbers of students from low-income families as 
referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5));
    (2) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that lead to the increased capacity of SEAs and LEAs to 
address the unique educational challenges and improve outcomes of 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities 
or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities 
as referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)) and 
their students;
    (3) Implement State accountability and assessment systems 
consistent with title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA section 1111(b)-(d)), 
including the requirement for States to conduct resource allocation 
reviews under ESEA section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii);
    (4) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that improve instruction and outcomes in core academic 
subjects, including math and literacy instruction;
    (5) Address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural and 
Tribal students; and
    (6) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that address other emerging education topics of national 
importance that are not being met by another federally funded technical 
assistance provider (e.g., best practices in the use of education 
technology, student support strategies promoting digital literacy and 
access, etc.).
    An applicant under this priority must demonstrate how it will 
cultivate a network of national subject matter experts from a diverse 
set of perspectives or organizations to provide capacity-building 
support to Regional Centers and clients regarding the ESEA topical 
areas listed above and other emerging education issues of national 
importance.
    Priority 2--Regional Centers.
    Projects that propose to establish Regional Centers to provide 
high-quality, useful, and relevant intensive capacity-building services 
to State and local clients and recipients to assist them in selecting, 
implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that will result in improved educator practice and 
student outcomes, especially in math and literacy. The approach must be 
driven by adult learning principles and incorporate implementation, 
improvement, and systems change frameworks.
    Each Regional Center must provide high-quality, useful, and 
relevant capacity-building services that demonstrably assist clients 
and recipients in--
    (1) Carrying out Consolidated State Plans approved under the ESEA, 
with preference given to the implementation and scaling up of evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit 
recipients that have high percentages or numbers of students from low-
income families as referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 
1113(a)(5)) and recipients that are implementing comprehensive support 
and improvement activities or targeted or additional targeted support 
and improvement activities as referenced in title I, part A of the ESEA 
(ESEA sec. 1111(d)), including the requirement for States to conduct 
resource allocation reviews required under ESEA section 
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii);
    (2) Implementing, scaling up, and sustaining evidence-based 
programs, practices, or interventions that focus on key initiatives 
that lead to LEAs and schools improving student outcomes. Key 
initiatives may include implementing evidence-based practices to help 
accelerate academic achievement in math and literacy (including high-
impact tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school learning and 
enrichment, and effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism 
and increase student engagement), improving core academic instruction, 
implementing innovative and promising approaches to systems of high-
quality assessment (including diagnostic, formative and interim

[[Page 41512]]

assessments to inform instructional design), addressing educator 
shortages (including recruitment, preparation, and retention), or 
developing aligned and integrated agency systems;
    (3) Addressing the unique educational obstacles faced by 
underserved populations, including students from low-income families, 
students of color, students living in rural areas, Tribal students, 
English learners, students in foster care, migratory children, 
immigrant children and youth, and other student populations with 
specific needs defined in the ESEA, which may include neglected, 
delinquent, and at-risk children and youth, and homeless children and 
youths; and
    (4) Improving implementation of ESEA programs including collecting 
and reporting program data and addressing corrective actions or results 
from audit findings and ESEA program monitoring, conducted by the 
Department, that are programmatic in nature, at the request of the 
client.
    Regional Centers must effectively work with the National Center and 
Content Centers, as needed, to assist clients in selecting, 
implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs, policies, 
practices, and interventions; and must develop cost-effective 
strategies to make their services available to as many SEAs, REAs, 
TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of support as 
possible.
    Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the 
following regions:

Region 1 (Northeast): Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, 
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 2 (Islands): Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic): Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania
Region 4 (Appalachia): Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 5 (Southeast): Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 6 (Gulf): Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 7 (Midwest): Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin
Region 8 (Central): Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 9 (Southwest): Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 10 (West): Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 11 (Northwest): Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana
Region 12 (Pacific 1): American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall 
Islands
Region 13 (Pacific 2): Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 14: Bureau of Indian Education

    Priority 3--Content Centers.
    Projects that propose to establish Content Centers to provide high-
quality, useful, and relevant targeted and universal capacity-building 
services in a designated content area of expertise to SEA, REA, TEA, 
and LEA clients designed to improve educational opportunities, educator 
practice, and student outcomes.
    Content Centers must be designed to build the capacity of 
practitioners, education system leaders, public schools serving 
preschool through 12th grades (P-12) (which may include Head Start and 
community-based preschool), LEAs, and SEAs to use evidence in the 
designated content area. Capacity-building services may include, for 
example, developing evidence-based products and tools, and providing 
services that directly inform the use of evidence in a State or local 
policy or program or improved program implementation to achieve desired 
educational outcomes. The approach must be driven by adult learning 
principles and incorporate implementation, improvement, and systems 
change frameworks. Services must promote the use of the latest 
evidence, including research and data; be effectively delivered using 
best practices in technical assistance and training; and demonstrate a 
rationale for how they will result in improved recipient outcomes.
    Content Centers must support Regional Centers, as needed, with 
subject matter expertise to enhance the intensive capacity-building 
services provided by the Regional Centers or to design universal or 
targeted capacity-building services to meet identified SEA, REA, TEA, 
or LEA needs.
    Content Centers must effectively coordinate and align targeted and 
universal capacity-building services with the National Center, Regional 
Centers, and other federally funded providers, as appropriate, to 
address high-leverage problems and provide access to urgently needed 
services to build Centers' capacity to support SEAs and local clients. 
Content Centers must effectively coordinate with the National Center, 
Regional Centers, and other federally funded providers to assess 
potential client needs, avoid duplication of services, and widely 
disseminate products or tools to practitioners, education system 
leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily 
accessible, understandable, and actionable to ensure the use of 
services by as many SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA recipients as possible.
    Applicants must propose to operate a Content Center in one of the 
following areas:
    (1) English Learners and Multilingualism: The Center on English 
Learners and Multilingualism must provide universal, targeted, and, as 
appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive 
capacity-building services designed to support SEAs and LEAs to meet 
the needs of English learners beginning with early language acquisition 
and development, meet the needs of English learners with disabilities, 
and increase access to high-quality language programs so that they, 
along with all students, have the opportunity to become multilingual. 
The Center must also support the selection, implementation, and scale-
up of evidence-based practices, in coordination with the National 
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, related to meeting the 
needs of English learners.
    (2) Early School Success: The Center for Early School Success must 
provide universal, targeted, and, as appropriate, and in partnership 
with Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to 
support SEAs and LEAs to implement comprehensive and aligned preschool 
to third-grade (PK-3) early learning systems in order to increase the 
number of children who experience success in early learning and 
achievement, including by increasing the number of children who meet 
challenging State academic standards; supporting effective transitions 
to kindergarten; partnerships with parents and families on everyday 
school attendance; and developmentally informed and evidence-based 
instructional practices in social and emotional development, early 
literacy, and math. The Center must support the selection, 
implementation, and scale-up of programs, policies, and practices, 
informed by research on child development, that can strengthen the 
quality of PK-3 learning experiences and support social, emotional, 
cognitive, and physical development.
    (3) Fiscal Equity: The Center on Fiscal Equity must provide 
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate, and in partnership with 
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to 
support SEAs and LEAs in strengthening equitable and adequate

[[Page 41513]]

resource allocation strategies, including the allocation of State and 
local resources; improving the quality and transparency of fiscal data 
at the school level; and prioritizing supports for students and 
communities with the greatest need, including schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional 
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of 
the ESEA in collaboration with the National Center. The Center must 
support the selection, implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based 
programs, policies, and practices that promote responsible fiscal 
planning and management, and effective and permissible uses of ESEA 
formula funds, including through combining those funds with other 
available and allowable Federal, State, and local funds (``blending and 
braiding'') and considering how ESEA funds may interact with and 
complement other Federal programs, such as IDEA, Medicaid, and Head 
Start to improve student opportunities and outcomes.
    (4) Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce: The Center 
on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce must provide 
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership with 
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to 
support SEAs to support their LEAs, schools, and their partners (e.g., 
educator preparation programs, workforce boards, labor unions) in 
designing and scaling practices that establish and enhance high-
quality, comprehensive, evidence-based, and affordable educator 
pathways, including educator residency and Grow Your Own programs, as 
well as emerging pathways into the profession such as registered 
apprenticeship programs for teachers; and in improving educator 
diversity, recruitment, and retention. The Center must support the 
selection, implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based programs, 
policies, and practices that will support States, LEAs, and their 
partners in addressing educator shortages and providing all students 
with highly qualified educators across the P-12 continuum, including 
through increased compensation and improved working conditions; high-
quality, comprehensive, evidence-based, and affordable educator 
preparation, including educator residency and Grow Your Own programs, 
as well as emerging pathways into the profession such as registered 
apprenticeship programs for teachers; providing opportunities for 
teacher leadership and career advancement; ongoing professional 
learning throughout educators' careers, including implementing 
evidence-based strategies for effective teaching and learning; 
strengthening novice teacher induction; and supporting and diversifying 
the educator workforce, as well as other actions to improve learning 
conditions and educator well-being.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    Program Requirements:
    The Department establishes the following program requirements for 
this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any 
year in which this program is in effect.
    Program Requirements for All Centers: National, Regional, and 
Content Center grantees under this program must:
    (1) Develop service plans annually for carrying out the technical 
assistance and capacity-building activities to be delivered by the 
Center in response to educational challenges facing students, 
practitioners, and education system leaders. Plans must include: High-
leverage problems to be addressed, including identified client needs, 
capacity-building services to be delivered, time-based outcomes (i.e., 
short-term, mid-term, long-term), responsible personnel, key technical 
assistance partners, milestones, outputs, dissemination plans, fidelity 
measures, if appropriate, and any other elements specified by the 
Department. The annual service plans must be an update to the Center's 
five-year plan submitted as part of the initial grant application and 
account for changes in client needs.
    (2) Develop and implement capacity-building services, including 
tools and resources, in partnership with State and local clients and 
recipients to reflect and address specific client needs and contexts 
and promote sustainable evidence utilization to address identified 
educational challenges.
    (3) Develop and implement an effective performance management and 
evaluation system that integrates continuous improvement to promote 
effective achievement of client outcomes. The system must include 
methods to measure and monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes, 
outputs, and milestones and to measure the reach, use, and impact of 
the services being delivered to ensure capacity-building services are 
implemented as intended, reaching intended clients and recipients, and 
achieving desired results. Progress monitoring must include periodic 
assessment of client satisfaction and timely identification of changes 
in State contexts that may impact the project's success. The 
performance management system must include strategies to report on 
defined program performance measures.
    (4) Develop and implement a stakeholder engagement system to 
regularly communicate, engage, and coordinate, using feedback to inform 
improvement, across organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), 
and facilitate regular engagement of stakeholders involved in or 
affected by proposed services. This system must provide regular and 
ongoing opportunities for outreach activities (e.g., ongoing promotion 
of services and products to potential and current recipients, 
particularly at the local level) and regular opportunities for 
engagement with potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or 
impacted by proposed school improvement activities (e.g., students, 
parents, educators, administrators, Tribal leaders) to ensure services 
reflect their needs.
    (5) Develop and implement a high-quality personnel management 
system to efficiently obtain and retain the services of nationally 
recognized technical and content experts and other consultants with 
direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. The Center must 
ensure that personnel have the appropriate expertise to deliver high-
quality capacity-building services that meet client and recipient need 
and be staffed at a level sufficient for

[[Page 41514]]

achieving the goals of its assigned projects and responsibilities.
    (6) Develop and implement a comprehensive communication and 
dissemination plan that includes strategies to disseminate information 
in multiple formats and mediums (e.g., evidence-based practice tool 
kits, briefs, informational webinars) including through CCNetwork 
websites, social media, and other methods as appropriate, and 
strategies to measure and monitor the use of the information it 
disseminates. The plan must include approaches to determine, at the 
outset of each project, in consultation with clients, the most 
effective modality and methodology for capturing evidence-based 
practices and lessons learned, dissemination strategies customized and 
based on needs of the targeted audience(s), and strategies to monitor 
and measure audience engagement and use of information and products of 
the Center. Centers must work with partners to disseminate products 
through networks in which the targeted audiences are most likely to 
seek or receive information, with the goal of expanding the reach of 
Centers to the largest number of recipients possible.
    (7) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with federally 
funded providers, State and national organizations, businesses, and 
industry experts, as applicable, to support States in the 
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions, as well as reduce duplication of services and 
engagement burden to States. Where appropriate, the agreements should 
document how the partnerships might advance along a continuum to 
effectively meet program and client goals.
    (8) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate 
to the Department that it has secured client and partner commitments to 
carry out proposed annual service plans.
    (9) Participate in a national evaluation of the Comprehensive 
Centers Program.
    Program Requirements for National Comprehensive Center: In addition 
to the requirements for all Centers, National Center grantees under 
this program must:
    (1) Design and implement robust needs-sensing activities and 
processes to consult with and integrate feedback from the Department, 
Regional and Content Centers, and advisory boards that surface high-
leverage problems that could be effectively addressed in developing the 
national annual service plan.
    (2) Collaborate with Regional and Content Centers to implement 
universal and targeted services for recipients to address high-leverage 
problems identified in the annual service plan. In providing targeted 
services (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges 
or communities of practice on problems), the National Center must 
provide opportunities for recipients to learn from their peers and 
subject matter experts and apply evidence-based practices and must 
define tangible, achievable capacity-building outcomes for recipient 
participation. Universal services must be grounded in evidence-based 
practices, be produced in a manner that recipients are most likely to 
use, be shared via multiple digital platforms, such as the CCNetwork 
website, social media, and other channels as appropriate, and be 
relevant for a variety of education stakeholders, including the general 
public.
    (3) Develop and implement a strategy to recruit and retain a 
comprehensive cadre of national subject matter experts that includes 
qualified education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals, 
and other consultants with (1) direct experience working in or with 
SEAs, REAs, TEAs and LEAs and (2) in-depth expertise in specific 
subject areas with an understanding of State contexts available to 
support universal and targeted services of the National Center and 
intensive capacity-building services of Regional Centers. Cadre experts 
must have a proven record of designing and implementing effective 
capacity-building services, using evidence effectively, and delivering 
quality adult learning experiences or professional development 
experiences that meet client and recipient needs and must have 
recognized subject matter expertise including publishing in peer-
reviewed journals and presenting at national conferences on the ESEA 
programs or content areas for which they are engaged as experts to 
provide universal, targeted, or intensive capacity building.
    (4) Reserve not less than one half of the annual budget to provide 
universal, targeted, and, as needed, intensive services to address 
topics 1-5 enumerated in the priority for this Center and as approved 
by the Department in the annual service plan.
    (5) Include in the communications and dissemination plan, and 
implement processes for outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion of 
services and products to clients and potential and current recipients), 
use of feedback loops across organizational levels (Federal, State, and 
local), regular engagement and coordination with the Department, 
Regional Centers, and partner organizations (e.g., federally funded 
providers), and engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by 
proposed school improvement activities.
    (6) Design and implement communications and dissemination vehicles 
for the CCNetwork, including maintaining the CCNetwork website with an 
easy-to-navigate design that meets government or industry recognized 
standards for accessibility, including compliance with Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and maintain a consistent media 
presence, in collaboration with Regional and Content Centers and the 
Department Communications office, that promotes increased engagement.
    (7) Develop peer learning opportunities for Regional and Content 
Center staff (and other partners, as appropriate) to address 
implementation challenges and scale effective practices to improve 
service delivery across the CCNetwork.
    (8) Collect and share information about services provided through 
the CCNetwork for the purpose of coordination, collaboration, and 
communication across Centers and other providers, including an annual 
analysis of service plans to identify and disseminate information about 
services rendered across the CCNetwork.
    (9) Ensure that the Project Director is capable of managing all 
aspects of the Center and is either staffed at 1 FTE or there are two 
Co-Project Directors each at a minimum of 0.75 FTE. The Project 
Director or Co-Project Directors and all key personnel must be able to 
provide services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate 
to achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in 
annual service plans.
    (10) Reserve not less than one third of the budget to address the 
program requirements for CCNetwork coordination (requirements 5 through 
8).
    Program Requirements for Regional Centers: In addition to the 
requirements for all Centers, Regional Center grantees under this 
program must:
    (1) Actively coordinate and collaborate with the REL serving their 
region. Coordination must include annual joint need sensing in a manner 
designed to comprehensively inform service delivery across both 
programs while reducing burden on State agencies. The goals of this 
coordination and collaboration are to share, synthesize, and apply 
information, ideas, and lessons learned; to enable each type of 
provider to focus on its designated role; to ensure that work is non-
duplicative; to streamline and simplify service provision to States and

[[Page 41515]]

LEAs; and to collaborate on projects to better support regional 
stakeholders.
    (2) Consult with a broad range of stakeholders, including chief 
State school officers and other SEA leaders, TEAs, LEAs, educators, 
students, and parents, and integrate their feedback in developing the 
annual service plan to reflect the needs of all States (and to the 
extent practicable, of LEAs) within the region to be served.
    (3) In developing the annual service plan, ensure services are 
provided to support students and communities with the highest needs, 
including recipients: (i) that have high percentages or numbers of 
students from low-income families as referenced in title I, part A of 
the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5)); (ii) that are implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or 
additional targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in 
title I, part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (iii) in rural areas; 
and (iv) serving student populations with demonstrated needs unmet or 
under-met through other Federal, State, or local interventions.
    (4) Explore and provide opportunities to connect peers within and 
across regions.
    (5) Collaborate with the National Center and Content Centers, as 
appropriate, including to support client and recipient participation in 
targeted capacity-building services, and obtain and retain the services 
of nationally recognized content experts through partnership with the 
National Center, Content Centers, or other federally funded providers.
    (6) Support the participation of Regional Center staff in CCNetwork 
peer learning opportunities, including sharing information about 
effective practices in the region, to extend the Center's reach to as 
many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as 
possible while also learning about effective capacity-building 
approaches to enhance the Center's ability to provide high-quality 
services.
    (7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide to 
the Department copies of partnership agreements with the REL(s) in the 
region that the Center serves and, as appropriate, other Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting 
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded 
technical assistance providers with particular expertise (e.g., early 
learning or instruction for English language learners) relevant to the 
region's service plan. Partnership agreements must define processes for 
coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program 
requirements.
    (8) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project 
Director must be capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be 
either at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project 
Directors each at a minimum of 0.5 FTE. The Project Director or Co-
Project Directors and key personnel must also be able to provide on-
site services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to 
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in 
annual service plans.
    Program Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to the 
requirements for all Centers, Content Center grantees under this 
program must:
    (1) Consult and integrate feedback from the Department and the 
National and Regional Centers in developing the annual service plan to 
inform high-quality tools, resources, and overall technical assistance 
in priority areas.
    (2) Collaborate with Regional Centers to address specific requests 
for assistance from States within the regions and strengthen Regional 
Center staff knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective 
practices within its specific content area.
    (3) Produce high-quality, universal capacity-building services, and 
identify, organize, select, and translate existing key research 
knowledge and Department guidance related to the Center's content area 
and examples of workable strategies and systems for implementing 
provisions and programs that have produced positive outcomes for 
schools and students, and communicate the information in ways that are 
highly relevant and useful to State- and local-level policymakers, 
practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.
    (4) Collaborate with the National Center and Regional Centers to 
convene States and LEAs, researchers, and other experts, including 
other Federal entities and providers of technical assistance as 
identified by the Department, to learn from each other about practical 
strategies for implementing ESEA provisions and programs related to the 
Center's area of focus.
    (5) Support the participation of Content Center staff in CCNetwork 
peer learning opportunities with the goal of providing high-quality 
services while reaching as many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools in 
need of services as possible.
    (6) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide 
copies to the Department of partnership agreements with Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting 
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded 
technical assistance providers with particular expertise relevant to 
the Center's content area. Partnership agreements must define processes 
for coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program 
requirements.
    (7) The Project Director must be capable of managing all aspects of 
the Center and be either at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two 
Co-Project Directors each at a minimum of 0.5 FTE. The Project Director 
or Co-Project Directors and all key personnel must be able to provide 
services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to 
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in 
annual service plans.
    Application Requirements:
    Application Requirements for All Centers:
    (1) Present an approach to the proposed project for operating the 
Comprehensive Center that clearly establishes the critical educational 
challenges proposed to be addressed by the Center, the impact the 
Center plans to achieve, including the proposed scope of services in 
relation to the number of SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and, as appropriate, 
schools served, with respect to specific State and local outcomes that 
would represent significant achievement in advancing the efforts of 
State and local systems to improve educational opportunities and 
student outcomes, and proposes how the Center will efficiently and 
effectively provide appropriate capacity-building services to achieve 
the desired outcomes.
    (2) Present applicable regional, State, and local educational 
needs, including relevant data demonstrating the identified needs, and 
including the perspectives of underrepresented groups, that could be 
addressed through the proposed capacity-building approach to implement 
and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
    (3) Demonstrate how key personnel possess subject matter expert 
knowledge of statutory requirements, regulations, and policies related 
to ESEA programs, current education issues, and policy initiatives for 
supporting the implementation and scaling up of evidence-based 
programs, practices, and interventions.
    (4) Demonstrate expertise in providing highly relevant and highly 
effective technical assistance (e.g., that is co-designed with clients; 
demonstrably addresses authentic needs based on needs-sensing 
activities; is

[[Page 41516]]

timely, relevant, useful, clear and measurable; and results in 
demonstrable improvements or outcomes), including by demonstrating 
expertise in the current research on adult learning principles, 
coaching, and implementation science that will drive the applicant's 
capacity-building services; how the applicant has successfully 
supported clients to achieve desired outcomes; and how the applicant 
will promote self-sufficiency and sustainability of State- and local-
led school improvement activities.
    (5) Present a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) informed by 
research or evaluation findings that demonstrates a rationale (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) explaining how the project is likely to improve 
or achieve relevant and expected outcomes. The logic model must 
communicate how the proposed project would achieve its expected 
outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term), and provide a framework 
for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project 
consistent with the applicant's performance management plan. Include a 
description of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, 
and theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these 
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
    (6) Present a management plan that describes the applicant's 
proposed approach to managing the project to meet all program 
requirements related to needs assessment, stakeholder engagement, 
communications and dissemination, personnel management, and 
partnerships.
    (7) Present a performance management and evaluation plan that 
describes the applicant's proposed approach to meeting the program 
requirements related to performance management, including the 
applicant's proposed strategy to report on defined program performance 
measures, and describes the criteria for determining the extent to 
which capacity-building services proposed in annual service plans were 
implemented as intended; recipient outcomes were met (short-term, 
midterm, and long-term); recipient capacity was developed; and services 
reached and were used by intended recipients.
    (8) 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 OESE 
program officer. With approval from the program 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.
    Application Requirements for the National Center: In addition to 
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a National Center 
applicant must:
    (1) Describe the proposed approach to leading coordination and 
collaboration of the CCNetwork, and demonstrate expertise and 
experience in leading communication and digital engagement strategies 
to attract and sustain the involvement of education stakeholders, 
including, but not limited to: implementing a robust web and social 
media presence, overseeing customer relations management, providing 
editorial support to Regional and Content Centers, and utilizing web 
analytics to improve content engagement.
    (2) Describe the proposed approach to providing targeted capacity-
building services, including how the applicant intends to collaborate 
with Regional Centers to identify potential recipients and estimate how 
many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs it has the capacity to reach; how it 
will measure the readiness and capacity of potential recipients; and 
how it will measure the extent to which targeted capacity-building 
services achieve intended recipient outcomes and result in increased 
recipient capacity (and specifically, increase capacity in one or more 
of the four dimensions of capacity-building).
    (3) Describe the proposed approach to universal capacity-building 
services, including how many and which recipients it plans to reach and 
how the applicant intends to: measure the extent to which products and 
services developed address common problems; support recipients in the 
selection, implementation, and monitoring of evidence-based practices; 
improve the use of evidence with regard to emerging national education 
trends; and build recipient capacity in at least one of the four 
dimensions of capacity-building.
    Application Requirements for Regional Centers:
    In addition to meeting the application requirements for all 
Centers, a Regional Center applicant must--
    (1) Describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building 
services, including identification of intended recipients based on 
available data in each of the content areas identified, alignment of 
proposed capacity-building services to client needs, and engagement of 
clients who may not initiate contact to request services. The applicant 
must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of clients 
and recipients to work with the Center; co-design projects and define 
outcomes; measure and monitor client and recipient capacity across the 
four dimensions of capacity-building; and measure the outcomes achieved 
throughout and at the conclusion of a project.
    (2) Demonstrate that proposed key personnel have the appropriate 
subject matter and technical assistance expertise to deliver high-
quality, intensive services that meet client and recipient needs 
similar to those in the region to be served.
    Application Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to 
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a Content Center 
applicant must--
    (1) Describe the proposed approach to carry out targeted capacity-
building services that increase the use of evidence-based products or 
tools regarding the designated content area amongst practitioners, 
education system leaders, elementary schools and secondary schools, 
LEAs, REAs and TEAs, and SEAs.
    (2) Describe the proposed approach to providing universal capacity-
building services, including how it will develop evidence-based 
products or tools regarding the designated content area; widely 
disseminate such products or tools to practitioners, education system 
leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily 
accessible, understandable, and actionable; identify intended 
recipients; and align proposed capacity-building services to client 
needs.
    (3) Demonstrate that key personnel have appropriate subject matter 
and technical assistance expertise to translate evidence into high-
quality technical assistance services and products for State and local 
clients, including expertise applying adult-learning principles and 
implementation science to the delivery of technical assistance services 
and products.

Final Definitions

    The Department establishes definitions of ``client,'' 
``collaboration,'' ``coordination,'' ``educator,'' ``English learner,'' 
``key personnel,'' and ``recipient,'' for use in this program in any 
year in which this program is in effect.
    We also replace certain terms established in the 2019 NFP. 
Specifically, although the 2019 NFP is not generally intended to be 
superseded by this action, we are establishing new definitions for the 
terms ``high-leverage problem,'' ``outcomes,'' and ``regional 
educational agency'' to better reflect how they are used in the 
program, including these final priorities,

[[Page 41517]]

requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Additionally, as 
established in the 2019 NFP, the term ``capacity-building services'' 
includes within it definitions for the ``four dimensions of capacity-
building services'' and the ``three tiers of capacity-building 
services.'' In this NFP, we define these terms separately. Other than 
separating these terms, we have not made changes to the general term 
``capacity-building services'' or the ``four dimensions of capacity-
building services'' as established in the 2019 NFP; however, to reflect 
how they apply to the priorities in this document, we revised 
definitions for the three tiers of capacity-building services: 
``intensive capacity-building services,'' ``targeted capacity-building 
services,'' and ``universal capacity-building services.''
    We also use in the priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria, the following terms, which are defined in the ESEA: 
``immigrant children and youth,'' ``migratory child,'' and ``tribal 
educational agency'' for use in this program in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    The priorities, requirements, and selection criteria also 
incorporate the following terms established for use in this program by 
the 2019 NFP: ``milestone'' and ``outputs.'' We have included the 
definitions of those terms in Appendix 1 to this document.
    Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an 
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous 
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
    Client means the organization with which the Center enters into 
agreement for negotiated capacity-building services. The client is 
engaged in defining the high-leverage problems, capacity-building 
services, and time-based outcomes for each project noted in the 
Center's annual service plan. Representatives of clients include but 
are not limited to Chief State School Officers or their designees, LEA 
leaders, and other system leaders.
    Collaboration means exchanging information, altering activities, 
and sharing in the creation of ideas and resources to enhance the 
capacity of one another for mutual benefit to accomplish a common goal.
    Coordination means exchanging information, altering activities, and 
synchronizing efforts to make unique contributions to shared goals.
    Educator means an individual who is a teacher (including an early 
education teacher), principal or other school leader, administrator, 
specialized instructional support personnel (e.g., school psychologist, 
counselor, school social worker, librarian, early intervention service 
personnel), paraprofessional, faculty, and others.
    English learner means an individual who is an English learner as 
defined in section 8101(20) of the ESEA, or an individual who is an 
English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act.
    Four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
    (1) Human capacity means development or improvement of individual 
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be 
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
    (2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear 
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions 
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in 
functional areas.
    (3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment, 
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and 
initiatives.
    (4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that 
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.
    High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could 
result in substantial improvements for groups of students with the 
greatest need, including for students from low-income families and for 
students attending schools implementing comprehensive support and 
improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement 
activities under ESEA section 1111(d)); (2) are priorities for 
education policymakers, particularly at the State level; and (3) 
require intensive capacity-building services to achieve outcomes that 
address the problem.
    Immigrant children and youth have the meaning ascribed in section 
3201(5) of the ESEA.
    Intensive capacity-building services means assistance often 
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between 
the Comprehensive Center and its clients and recipients, as well as 
periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of evidence-based 
improvement strategies. This category of capacity-building services 
should support increased recipient capacity in more than one dimension 
of capacity-building services and result in medium-term and long-term 
outcomes at one or more system levels.
    Key personnel means any personnel considered to be essential to the 
work being performed on the project.
    Migratory child has the meaning ascribed it in section 1309(3) of 
the ESEA.
    Outcomes means demonstrable effects of receiving capacity-building 
services and must reflect the result of capacity built in at least one 
of the four dimensions of capacity building. ``Outcomes'' includes 
short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, and long-term outcomes:
    (1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year.
    (2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years.
    (3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building 
services after 4 or more years.
    Recipient means organizations including, but not limited to, SEAs, 
LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and schools that have received ``intensive'' and 
``targeted'' capacity-building services and products from Regional 
Centers, or that received ``targeted'' or ``universal'' capacity-
building services and products from the National Center or Content 
Centers.
    Regional educational agency means educational agencies that serve 
regional areas within a State.
    Targeted capacity-building services means assistance based on needs 
common to multiple clients and recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the recipient(s), 
the National Center or Content Center, and Regional Center(s), as 
appropriate. This category of capacity-building services includes one-
time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning 
or hosting national or regional conferences. It can also include 
services that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a 
series of conference calls, virtual or in-person meetings, or learning 
communities on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also 
be considered targeted capacity-building services.
    Tribal educational agency has the meaning ascribed in section 
6132(b)(3) of the ESEA.
    Universal capacity-building services means assistance and 
information provided to independent users through their own initiative, 
involving minimal interaction with National or Content Center staff. 
This category of capacity-building services includes information or 
products, such as newsletters,

[[Page 41518]]

guidebooks, policy briefs, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
Center's website by independent users, and may include one-time, 
invited or offered webinar or conference presentations by National or 
Content Center staff. Brief communications or consultations by National 
or Content Center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, 
are also considered universal services.

Final Selection Criteria

    The Secretary establishes the following selection criteria for 
evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more 
of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In 
the NIA we will announce the maximum possible points available under 
each criterion.
    Approach to Capacity Building. In determining the overall quality 
of the approach to capacity building of the proposed project, the 
Secretary may consider one or more of the following factors.
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach to responding to the priority or priorities 
established for the competition that will likely result in building SEA 
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support local- and 
school-level initiatives that improve educational opportunities and 
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction for all students.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an exceptional 
approach to developing and delivering high-quality, useful, and 
relevant capacity-building services that are likely to achieve desired 
recipient outcomes, including--
    (a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, targeted 
and universal capacity-building services that would be expected to 
assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and Regional Center clients and 
recipients, including those who do not proactively request assistance, 
to address the activities described in the priority;
    (b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, intensive 
capacity-building services that would be expected to assist clients and 
recipients to address the activities described in the priority; and
    (c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, targeted and 
universal capacity-building services that would be expected to assist 
clients and recipients, including those who do not proactively request 
assistance, to address activities described in the priority related to 
the designated content area.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed approach to capacity building 
provides strategies that address the technical assistance needs of 
State and local educational systems in key areas of identified need, as 
evidenced by in-depth knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, 
implementation challenges faced by States; evidence-based practices 
related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of schools 
designated for improvement; needs to improve core instruction; and 
emerging education topics of national importance;
    (b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the specific 
educational goals and priorities of the States to be served by the 
applicant, including emerging priorities based on State-led reform 
efforts, and the applicable State and regional demographics, policy 
contexts, and other factors and their relevance to improving 
educational opportunities and outcomes, closing achievement gaps, and 
improving instruction; and
    (c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, State 
technical assistance needs and evidence-based practices related to the 
Content Center priority for which the applicant is applying.
    (4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent 
to which the approach to capacity building and management plans propose 
an exceptional approach to meeting the application requirements for the 
National Center.
    (5) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the extent 
to which the applicant's approach to capacity building proposes an 
exceptional approach to meeting the application requirements for all 
Regional Centers.
    (6) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, the extent to 
which the applicant's approach to capacity building proposes an 
exceptional approach to meeting the application requirements for all 
Content Centers.
    Quality of Project Design. In determining the quality of the 
project design of the proposed Center for which the applicant is 
applying, the Secretary may consider one or more of the following 
factors.
    (1) The extent to which the proposed performance management and 
evaluation system and processes demonstrate an exceptional approach to 
integrating continuous improvement processes and evaluation that will 
result in regular and ongoing improvement in the quality of the 
services provided and increase the likelihood that recipient outcomes 
are achieved.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed stakeholder engagement system 
is likely to result in a high level of engagement with multiple 
potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or impacted by the 
proposed capacity-building activities to ensure that the proposed 
services reflect their needs, are delivered in a manner that is 
relevant and useful, and reach the largest number of recipients 
possible.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed personnel management system 
includes effective processes to enable hiring, developing, supervising, 
and retaining a team of subject matter and technical assistance 
experts, consultants and professional staff, and ensure availability of 
appropriate expertise and staffing at a level sufficient to effectively 
execute the responsibilities of key personnel to achieve the goals of 
the project.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed partnerships represent an 
intentional approach to collaboration that is likely to reduce client 
burden and to ensure that Federal resources are being used most 
efficiently and effectively to meet a variety of needs across federally 
funded providers.
    (5) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent 
to which the proposed project represents an exceptional management 
approach to coordination, collaboration, and communication of the 
complex work of the CCNetwork.
    Subject Matter and Technical Assistance Expertise. In determining 
the subject matter and technical assistance expertise of key project 
personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant 
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of 
groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, 
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
    In addition, the Secretary may consider one or more of the 
following factors.
    (1) The extent to which key project personnel demonstrate the 
required subject matter expertise and relevant knowledge, 
understanding, and experience in operating and administering State and 
local educational systems to effectively support recipients.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated exceptional 
technical assistance expertise in providing high-quality, timely, 
relevant, and useful technical assistance and capacity-building 
services to State and local educational systems.

[[Page 41519]]

    (3) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the ability 
to develop new and ongoing partnerships with leading experts and 
organizations nationwide or regionally, as appropriate, that enhance 
its ability to provide high-quality technical assistance and subject 
matter expertise.
    (4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent 
to which the applicant has demonstrated ability in operating a project 
of such scope.
    This document does not preclude the Department 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 one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions, 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 
(as of 2023 but adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of OMB 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;
    (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.
    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, 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 final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The costs are those resulting 
from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary 
for administering the Department's programs and activities. The 
Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose 
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in the 
Comprehensive Centers Program is voluntary, and whose costs can 
generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the regulatory 
action will not impose any particular burden, except when an entity 
voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria help ensure that the grant program 
selects a high-quality applicant to implement activities that meet the 
goals of the program for each Center. We believe these benefits 
outweigh any associated costs.
    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.

[[Page 41520]]

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format 
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 
available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Adam Schott,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Delegated the Authority to Perform 
the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education.

Appendix I

    The final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria 
incorporate the following terms established for use in this program 
by the 2019 NFP:
    Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples 
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for 
professional development, sharing key observations from needs 
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders, 
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional 
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting 
train-the-trainer sessions.
    Outputs means products and services that must be completed. 
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules, 
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.
    Note: A product output under this program would be considered a 
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.

[FR Doc. 2024-09877 Filed 5-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P