[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58983-58991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0001]


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

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

ACTION: Final priorities and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities 
and requirements for the National Technical Assistance Center To 
Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 
Early Childhood IDEA Data (Center) under the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program. The Department may use these priorities 
and these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We 
will use the priorities to award a cooperative agreement for a Center 
to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States 
to meet the early childhood data collection and reporting requirements 
under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA).

DATES: The priority and requirements are effective August 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0135. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of 
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide 
TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet 
the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of 
IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside 
for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate 
of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review 
the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data 
and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 
and 642 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the 
Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 
to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection 
requirements, which include the data collection and reporting 
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Further 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, gives the 
Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA 
to ``administer and carry out other services and activities to improve 
data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of 
the IDEA.'' Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 
118-47, Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    Assistance Listing Number: 84.373Z.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 
Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

[[Page 58984]]

    We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) 
for this program in the Federal Register on February 22, 2024 (89 FR 
13294). That document contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the priority and requirements.
    There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final 
priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section of this document. The most significant 
change, as discussed below, is the elimination of the requirement for 
an electronic open-source tool to assist States in linking and 
integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education data with other data/data systems associated with 
other Federal programs that support infants, toddlers, and young 
children and their families.\1\ We are also adding expected outcome (i) 
for the Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This NFP describes infants, toddlers and/or children with 
disabilities as ``children with disabilities'' or ``young children 
with disabilities'' to include children referred to both Parts C and 
B of the IDEA, birth through age five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight 
parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priority and 
requirements. We received one additional comment unrelated to the 
priority.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priority and requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of 
the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics, 
including the topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.

General Comments

    Comments: All commenters specifically expressed support for the 
proposed Center, as it would improve State capacity for IDEA early 
childhood data collection, analysis, and reporting.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with 
the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide 
necessary and valuable TA to States to improve the capacity of States 
to meet their IDEA early childhood data collection, analysis, and 
reporting requirements.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The majority of commenters focused their comments on the 
Department's directed question regarding the phased-in funding 
strategy, which entails smaller initial awards followed by larger ones 
in subsequent years. Many expressed reservations about this approach, 
particularly in light of the expanded scope and obligations introduced 
by Proposed Priority 2: Technical Assistance To Improve State Capacity 
To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Child Find Data For 
Infants and Toddlers. They highlighted concerns about the added 
requirement to create an open-source electronic tool aimed at assisting 
States in integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B 
preschool special education data with other Federal program data 
systems supporting infants, toddlers, and young children and their 
families. The commenters also noted that the strategy would restrict 
the Center's ability to offer comprehensive support to States. One 
commenter suggested postponing intensive TA on data utilization for 
Child Find processes until full funding could be secured, emphasizing 
the need for additional financial resources to develop the open-source 
electronic tool.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the feedback provided by 
commenters regarding the necessity to align the scope and requirements 
of these priorities with the available funding for this project. We 
recognize the ongoing needs of States concerning the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA Part C and Part B preschool 
special education data. Consequently, any expansion of the scope and 
requirements for these priorities should align to the most pressing 
needs identified by States. To address the concerns raised by 
commenters, the Department is refining the scope and requirements of 
these priorities accordingly. Furthermore, we expect applicants to 
propose suitable timelines for implementing general, targeted, and 
intensive TA, taking into account the annual funding levels provided 
for this project.
    Changes: The Department is adjusting the scope of these priorities 
and requirements to align with the funding available for this Center by 
eliminating the requirement for an open-source tool and narrowing the 
scope of TA associated with data integration to primarily focus on the 
sharing, linking, or integrating of IDEA Part C early intervention and 
IDEA Part B preschool special education data.

Integrating Early Childhood Data Systems

    Comments: Two commenters expressed approval for incorporating an 
open-source electronic tool to aid States in linking and integrating 
their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education 
data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal 
programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their 
families. However, several commenters voiced concerns regarding the 
inclusion of this requirement in Priority 1. They pointed out that 
creating such a tool would demand significant project resources and a 
substantial commitment of State staff, which may currently be 
unfeasible. Moreover, one commenter provided evidence suggesting that 
this tool is not a top priority for State staff compared to other 
aspects of these priorities.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback provided on the 
open-source electronic tool to assist States in linking and integrating 
their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education 
data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal 
programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their 
families. We agree with the commenters that the development of the 
open-source electronic tool should be omitted from the requirements of 
these priorities to align the scope of this center with the most 
pressing needs identified by States.
    Changes: We removed the requirement for an open-source electronic 
tool from Priority 1.
    Comments: Several commenters suggested modifications to the scope 
and expected outcomes of the TA concerning the enhancement, 
streamlining, and integration of statewide, child-level early childhood 
data systems. One commenter stated that many States have a considerable 
amount of work to do before they are able to integrate and/or link data 
outside of the IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education programs. Another commenter noted that, while TA is 
an important component to the data integration work, States must also 
have State leadership support, support of other programs and agencies, 
as well as necessary staff, financial resources, and data capacity to 
plan for and accomplish the complexities involved in this type of data 
integration. This commenter noted that States expressed that the 
expected outcome related to data system integration was of lower 
priority to Part C early intervention programs. They

[[Page 58985]]

noted that given the current challenges and priorities of Part C lead 
agencies, data integration for many States remains aspirational at this 
point. For these reasons, commenters suggested to focus this TA on--(1) 
data sharing and linking between the IDEA Part C early intervention 
program and IDEA Part B preschool special education programs; and (2) 
States' readiness to engage in TA related to linking or integrating 
Part C and Part B preschool special education data with other 
statewide, child-level early learning data systems (e.g., early 
childhood integrated data systems (ECIDS)).
    Discussion: The Department acknowledges that States vary in their 
levels of interest, capability, and commitment to share, link, or 
integrate their Part C and Part B preschool special education data with 
data from other early learning data systems. Additionally, we recognize 
that engaging in TA regarding data sharing, linking, and integrating 
requires a significant commitment of State staff and resources. 
Moreover, we appreciate the feedback indicating that data sharing, 
linking, and integrating with other early learning data systems is a 
lower priority for Part C and Part B preschool special education 
programs at this time. We also appreciate the recommendation to assess 
the readiness of States to engage in TA on this topic. Consequently, we 
are refining the scope of Priority 1 in light of these considerations.
    Changes: The Department has removed expected outcome (e) concerning 
State capacity to utilize available integrated or linked Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education data and/or early 
childhood integrated data systems to analyze high-quality data on the 
participation and outcomes of infants, toddlers, and children with 
disabilities served under IDEA who may also participate in other 
programs.
    Additionally, we have made the following revisions:
     Expected outcome (c) in Priority 1 now emphasizes 
increasing the number of States with plans to share, link, or integrate 
data, specifically considering the linking of Part C early intervention 
and Part B preschool special education data.
     Expected outcome (e) in Priority 1 now concentrates on 
enhancing States' readiness to engage in data sharing, linking, or 
integration activities among Part C and Part B preschool special 
education data/systems and other statewide longitudinal and early 
learning data/systems. This includes data/systems associated with child 
care, Early Head Start, Head Start, publicly funded preschool, and home 
visiting programs.
     Expected outcome (f) in Priority 1 now centers on data 
management policies and procedures, encompassing data sharing, linking, 
and integration, as well as data system integration activities. These 
policies and procedures aim to facilitate the collection, reporting, 
analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention and 
Part B preschool special education data.

Areas of State Need

    Comments: Several commenters recommended the inclusion of 
additional areas of State need associated with the IDEA section 616 
data (as modified by IDEA section 642), including early childhood and 
family outcomes data, data to be reported on the new general 
supervision indicator, and data for the State Systemic Improvement Plan 
(SSIP). Additionally, commenters provided support for providing TA 
around Part C child find data and analyses, including defining, 
collecting, and using data to improve the processes for identifying 
young children eligible for IDEA services and to monitor equitable 
access to early intervention services.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the need for this Center to 
increase State capacity to collect, report, analyze and use Part C 
child find data, early childhood and family outcomes data, general 
supervision data, and program improvement data. These areas align with 
the following indicators that State Part C Programs report under the 
IDEA section 616 data: Indicator 3 (Early Childhood Outcomes), 
Indicator 4 (Family Outcomes), Indicators 5 and 6 (Child Find), 
Indicator 11 (SSIP), and Indicator 12 (General Supervision). This 
Center will provide TA in these areas as they relate to the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of the IDEA section 616 data under 
expected outcome (a) of Priority 1.
    Changes: The Department inserted a footnote to clarify the data 
reported under IDEA section 616 in expected outcome (a) of Priority 1.
    Comments: Two commenters expressed the need for this Center to 
provide TA to support State capacity to participate in the 
Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) process.
    Discussion: The Department acknowledges the necessity of enhancing 
State capacity to collect, report, analyze and use data for evidence-
based monitoring protocols within the DMS process. DMS is a cyclical 
monitoring process that focuses on States' general supervision systems. 
General supervision encompasses each State's responsibility to ensure 
that the State and its subgrantees and contractors meet the 
requirements of IDEA. These requirements include improving educational 
results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and 
early intervention results and functional outcomes for all infants and 
toddlers with disabilities. Additionally, public agencies must meet the 
program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular 
emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to 
improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities. 
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) identifies data, 
including the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report 
(APR), as one of the four components of general supervision that is 
examined in the DMS process. Consequently, we have incorporated an 
expected outcome related to strengthening State capacity to collect, 
report, analyze, and use data, demonstrating State-level implementation 
of IDEA policies and procedures.
    Changes: The Department inserted expected outcome (i) in Priority 1 
to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data to 
improve State IDEA data analyses regarding results and functional 
outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities to 
demonstrate and improve how public agencies meet the program 
requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on 
those requirements that are most closely related to improving early 
intervention results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and 
educational results for children with disabilities as monitored by the 
Department via its DMS process.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested a specific focus on building 
State capacity in the area of data leadership.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that there is a need to build 
State capacity in data leadership. Data leaders are expected to create 
a culture of data use in their programs, facilitate and promote 
building the capacity of staff and stakeholders to use data, and 
enhance the data infrastructure needed to improve the management of 
Part C and Part B preschool special education data through the entire 
life cycle.
    Changes: The Department revised expected outcome (g) in Priority 1 
to

[[Page 58986]]

include building State capacity to address data leadership training 
needs.

Components for TA

    Comments: One commenter suggested a need for the Center to offer 
cross-State connections and learning opportunities and another 
commenter suggested adding a requirement for the Center to host a data 
conference.
    Discussion: The Department agrees there is a need for the Center to 
offer cross-State training opportunities. We think that expected 
outcome (g) in Priority 1, which requires the Center to facilitate both 
in-person and virtual cross-State training for data leaders and 
personnel in State and local programs and agencies, effectively 
addresses this need. Applicants should propose the type(s) of cross-
State training opportunities they believe are most effective and 
efficient to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use 
the Part C and Part B preschool special education data.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that there should be an 
intentional focus on equitable data collection, analysis, and use 
within these priorities.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that there is a need to build 
State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C and Part B 
preschool special education data to support equitable identification, 
access, services, outcomes, and impact of early intervention and 
preschool special education and related services on infants, toddlers, 
and young children receiving services under IDEA. Additionally, we 
think the expected outcome (h) in Priority 1 and the expected outcomes 
(b), (c), and (d) in Priority 2 address this need.
    Changes: None.

Final Priorities

    This document contains two final priorities.

Priority 1: National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood 
IDEA Data

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

    \2\ The Center must review the need for additional resources 
(with input from the Department) and disseminate existing resources 
developed by the Department, such as: (1) Understanding the 
Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA Early Childhood 
Programs (October 2016); (2) IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk (Surprenant & 
Miller, August 24, 2022)(https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/IDEA-FERPA%20Crosswalk_08242022.pdf); (3) Webinars such as Navigating 
IDEA and FERPA To Protect Privacy in Today's Early Childhood World 
(September 22, 2023); and (4) Data sharing agreement template (at 
https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-mou-template/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data (including IDEA 
section 616 Part C data \3\ and section 618 Part C data \4\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The IDEA section 616 Part C data includes Indicators 1 
through 12 as discussed in the Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) 
and Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator Measurement Table.
    \4\ The IDEA section 618 Part C data includes Part C Child Count 
and Settings data collection, Part C Exiting data collection, and 
the Part C Dispute Resolution data collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B preschool special education data;
    (c) Increased number of States with plans to share, link, or 
integrate Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special 
education data (that comply with all applicable privacy laws) and use 
such shared, linked, or integrated Part C early intervention and Part B 
preschool special education data to improve program compliance and 
accountability;
    (d) Increased number of States that use their Part C early 
intervention and Part B preschool special education data system to 
identify and answer critical State-determined policy questions to drive 
program improvement, improve results for children with disabilities, 
and improve compliance accountability;
    (e) Increased number of States who consider engaging in data 
sharing, linking, or integration activities related to Part C and Part 
B preschool special education data/data systems to other statewide 
longitudinal and early learning data/data systems (e.g., Early Head 
Start, Head Start, child care, publicly funded preschool, and home 
visiting programs) and identify how to enable such sharing, linkages, 
or integration so that it would comply with all applicable privacy 
laws;
    (f) Increased capacity of States to implement and document Part C 
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data 
management policies and procedures, including data sharing, linking, 
and integration activities, used to collect, report, analyze, and use 
high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education data;
    (g) Increased capacity of States to address data leadership and 
personnel training needs to collect, report, analyze, and use the Part 
C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data 
collection through development of effective tools and resources, as 
well as providing opportunities for in-person and virtual cross-State 
training for data leaders and personnel in State and local programs and 
agencies to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C early intervention 
and Part B preschool special education;
    (h) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use Part C and Part B preschool special education data to support 
equitable identification, access, services, outcomes, and impact of 
early intervention and preschool special education and related services 
on infants, toddlers, and young children receiving services under IDEA; 
and
    (i) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education 
data to improve State IDEA data analyses regarding results

[[Page 58987]]

and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and young children 
with disabilities to demonstrate and improve how public agencies meet 
the program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular 
emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to 
improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities as 
monitored by OSEP via its Differentiated Monitoring and Support 
process.

Priority 2: Technical Assistance To Improve State Capacity To Collect, 
Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Child Find Data for Infants and 
Toddlers

    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund TA to increase the capacity 
of States to collect, report, analyze, and use available data to 
improve the Part C child find data they report through their Part C 
SPP/APR.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use available data to improve the root cause analysis of their Part C 
child find data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data for indicators 
C5 and C6 and section 618 Part C data);
    (b) Increased number of States that have the capacity to identify, 
for children served under IDEA Part C, other data they may collect 
(such as number of infants and toddlers referred, screened, evaluated, 
eligible, and enrolled in early intervention services under Part C) by 
various characteristics of the child, including race, ethnicity, home 
language, gender, socio-economic status, and geographic location;
    (c) Increased number of States that have the capacity to conduct a 
root cause analysis of available child find data to better identify 
disparities among demographic groups and potential barriers to 
enrollment in early intervention services under Part C of IDEA; and
    (d) Increased number of States that have the capacity to use their 
IDEA and non-IDEA Part C child find data to improve their IDEA child 
find processes at the State and local program levels.
    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)).
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
this program. In addition to the program requirements contained in both 
priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements. We may apply these 
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Requirements:
    Applicants must--
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges associated with early childhood data 
management and data sharing, linking, and integration, including 
implementing early childhood data system integration and improvements; 
enhancing and streamlining Part C early intervention and Part B 
preschool special education data systems to respond to critical policy 
questions; using ECIDS for program improvement and compliance 
accountability for Part C early intervention and Part B preschool 
special education programs; reporting high-quality IDEA Part C data 
(including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data) 
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data to the Department and 
the public; and analyzing Part C child find data to improve equitable 
access to Part C early intervention services. To meet this requirement 
the applicant must--
    (i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating 
the challenges of States to implement effective early childhood data 
management policies and procedures and data sharing, linking, and 
integration activities, including integrating early childhood data 
systems across IDEA programs, other early learning programs, and other 
educational programs for school-aged students; link Part C and Part B 
preschool special education program data; use their Part C and Part B 
preschool special education data systems to respond to critical State-
determined policy questions for program improvement and compliance 
accountability; and collect, report, analyze, and use Part C child find 
data to improve equitable access to Part C early intervention services;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical 
issues and policy initiatives relating to early childhood data 
management and data sharing, linking, and integration; data use; data 
privacy; Part C IDEA sections 616 and 618 data; Part C child find data; 
Part B preschool special education data; and Part C and Part B 
preschool special education data systems; and
    (iii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of sharing, linking, and integrating Part C and Part B preschool 
special education data; sharing, linking, or integrating Part C and/or 
Part B preschool special education data systems with other early 
learning data systems; using Part C and Part B preschool special 
education data systems to respond to critical State-determined policy 
questions; and collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality 
IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 
618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data; and
    (2) Improve early childhood data management policies and procedures 
and data sharing, linking, and integration practices to: collect, 
report, and analyze high-quality Part C and Part B preschool special 
education data (including Part C child find data); share, link, or 
integrate Part C and Part B preschool special education data; share, 
link, or integrate these data with data on children participating in 
other early learning programs and data on school-aged children; and use 
robust early childhood data systems to improve the analyses of IDEA 
data to the extent these analyses answer critical State-determined 
policy questions. Include

[[Page 58988]]

the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \5\ 
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (i) The current research on early childhood data management and 
data sharing, linking, and integration, and related EBPs; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on 
early childhood data management and data system integration;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services;
    (B) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the State and local level; and
    (C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with 
OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop 
and implement a coordinated TA plan when the work of the center or 
centers overlaps with the proposed project; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\8\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 58989]]

    (G) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with the 
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, the Early 
Childhood Technical Assistance Center, other Department-funded TA 
investments, other federally funded TA investments, and Institute of 
Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research 
and development investments, where appropriate, in order to align 
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and 
services to meet the purposes of this priority and to develop and 
implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State; and
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\9\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, or have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application and 
administrative requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions.
    Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data 
appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding 
reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance 
report (APR) and at the end of Year 2; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a ``third-party'' evaluator, as well as the costs associated with 
the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities;
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are 
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.
    (ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the 
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused 
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget 
period.
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Provide an assurance that the project will--
    (i) Reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the 
third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are conducted 
virtually; and
    (ii) Within 30 days of receipt of the award, participate in a post-
award teleconference between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's 
project director or other authorized representative;
    (4) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (5) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
targeted and intensive TA to States;
    (6) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality 
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

[[Page 58990]]

    (7) Include, in appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to these new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set 
forth in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the final priorities and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify the costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose 
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this 
program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements 
on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects 
that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets 
a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing 
requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these 
requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
    The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal 
Government outweigh the costs associated with this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priorities, including requirements, contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028; the final priorities, including requirements, do not 
affect the currently approved data collection.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect 
are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State 
law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private 
nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; 
Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We 
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by these final 
priorities and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden related 
to preparing an application and that the benefits will outweigh any 
costs incurred by applicants.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priorities and 
requirements impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for 
funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to 
apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, 
an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an 
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the 
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity will apply only 
if it

[[Page 58991]]

determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application.
    We believe that the final priorities and requirements will not 
impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant 
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That 
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the 
absence of this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare 
an application would likely be the same.
    This final regulatory action would not have a significant economic 
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be 
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under 
this program.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other Department documents published in the 
Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access Department documents 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.

Dant[eacute] Allen,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-16115 Filed 7-18-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P