[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6915-6922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00985]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0144]
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Technical
Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report,
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority
for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C
Fiscal Data Center (Fiscal Data Center) under the Technical Assistance
on State Data Collection program. The Department may use this priority
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 and later years. We take this
action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide
technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the
fiscal data collection requirements under Part B and Part C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Fiscal Data
Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining
how to best analyze and use their IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data to
establish and meet high expectations for each child with a disability
and will customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However,
[[Page 6916]]
if you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your
comments via www.regulations.gov, please contact the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department
will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email, or comments
submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure the Department
does not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under
``FAQ.''
Note: The Department's policy is generally to make comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles D. Kniseley, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 987-0907. 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.
A brief summary of the rule is available at www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2024-OSERS-0144.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect
in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the
specific section of the proposed priority that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from the proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about the proposed priority by accessing Regulations.gov. To
inspect comments in person, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for the proposed priority. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the
Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide
TA activities authorized under section 616(i), where needed, to improve
the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting
requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the
Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is
$25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section
616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information
determined necessary for implementation of sections 616 and 642 of IDEA
are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It
also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which
include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616
and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the 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,
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Assistance Listing Number: 84.373F.
OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d),
1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47,
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
Proposed Priority
This document contains one proposed priority.
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C
Fiscal Data.
Background
Collecting, analyzing, and using valid and reliable IDEA fiscal
data are critical for States to be able to ensure that funds made
available to support programs for infants, toddlers, children, and
youth with disabilities are used consistent with requirements and to
implement effective programs that improve outcomes for infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. However, the
Department's review and analysis of State-submitted fiscal data show
that States are not meeting all fiscal requirements or effectively
using their data to understand how to meet the requirements, thereby
impacting program effectiveness and outcomes. For example, State-
submitted data regarding local educational agency (LEA) maintenance of
effort (MOE) and coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) for
school year 2021-2022 indicate that 239 LEAs across 20 States failed to
maintain effort, with approximately 28 percent of those failures
occurring in public charter schools that are LEAs. The data also show
that States made repayment for only 26 of those LEA MOE shortfalls at
the time States submitted their data to the Department. Assisting
States in understanding and analyzing why LEAs, including public
charter schools that are LEAs, are failing LEA MOE, and the factors
contributing to delays in State repayments for MOE failures, has high-
stakes implications for IDEA implementation, including ensuring that
children with disabilities who attend public charter schools that are
LEAs have sufficient resources to receive a free appropriate public
education.
Changes to Federal fiscal requirements that impact the fiscal data
States must submit to the Department require States to build their
capacity to submit valid and reliable fiscal data. Starting in FY 2024,
State lead agencies (LAs) for Part C are now reporting the data
submission related to LAs' use of subgrants.\1\ LAs have demonstrated
[[Page 6917]]
confusion in determining whether or not they are subgranting and need
to understand what these data represent as well as the underlying
requirements when subgranting Federal funds, including the cross-
cutting Federal fiscal requirements and related responsibilities that
apply both to the LA as a pass-through entity and to its early
intervention services (EIS) providers and programs as subgrantees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ten States indicated that they are currently subgranting
IDEA Part C funds. It should be noted that subgranting of IDEA Part
C funds was first permitted in the FY 2021 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (HR 133), and is now supported by revisions to 34
CFR 76.50 of the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes within a State, such as the methods by which State and
local special education and early intervention funding is calculated
and distributed, can also impact its ability to submit accurate and
valid fiscal data. As an example, when a State changes its special
education funding formula from a per capita amount of State aid based
on the number of children with disabilities in an LEA to a weighted
formula that provides variable funding based on children within each of
IDEA's 13 disability categories, the change potentially affects
calculations of both State maintenance of financial support (MFS) and
LEA MOE as well as a State's and LEAs' ability to meet MFS and LEA MOE
respectively.
When States change LAs or shift LA responsibility under IDEA Part C
to reorganize their early childhood programs and create offices that
serve children birth to five,\2\ this can also impact how fiscal data
are collected, analyzed, and used. These types of organizational
changes result in modifications to early intervention methods of
establishing financial responsibility, consistent with 34 CFR 303.511,
and often have implications for the LA's use of IDEA Part C funds and
the methodology for determining indirect costs. There may also be the
challenge of having new, inexperienced staff collecting, analyzing, and
reporting IDEA Part C fiscal data in the new LA or office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Since FY 2021, 11 States have changed lead agencies, with a
number moving to newly created early learning agencies serving birth
to five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in States that have not reorganized their SEA or LA, the high
rate of turnover among State staff responsible for implementing IDEA in
some States is an ongoing challenge that creates a continuing need for
supporting States' ability to accurately collect, report, analyze, and
use fiscal data. In 2023, 23 percent of State Directors of Special
Education, who are responsible for implementing IDEA Part B
requirements including fiscal requirements, left their positions, and
38 percent of State Directors of Special Education had fewer than two
years of experience in their roles that year.\3\ Similar leadership
trends can be found in Part C LAs. In 2023, 49 percent of Part C
Coordinators, who are responsible for implementing IDEA Part C,
including fiscal requirements and providing information related to
their program's intended use of funds in the IDEA Part C grant
application, had two years or less of experience in the position. In
that same year, 74 percent of Part C Coordinators reported having five
years or less experience.\4\ The impacts of staff turnover on SEA and
LA fiscal performance and data reporting can potentially include the
loss of knowledge related to fiscal requirements; loss of institutional
knowledge related to State policies, procedures, and practices; and
costs associated with recruiting and training new staff.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Center for Systemic Improvement. (2024). State
special education director snapshot: Trends in turnover and tenure.
https://ncsi.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NCSI-Leadership-Turnover-ADA-FINAL.pdf.
\4\ IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. (2024).
2023 Tipping points survey: Demographics, challenges, and
opportunities. www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2023-Tipping-Points-Survey.pdf.
\5\ Research shows that the impact of staff turnover and
inexperience on organizational performance is more pronounced in
situations where staff are required to work on difficult tasks that
require specialized skills. Meier, K. J., & Hicklin, A. (2008).
Employee turnover and organizational performance: Testing a
hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 18(4), 573-590.
www.jstor.org/stable/25096385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situations identified above highlight States' need for support
in building the knowledge and expertise to help ensure compliance with
IDEA's fiscal data requirements and to use the results to identify
issues and improve State systems. Lack of staff knowledge and expertise
may contribute to inaccurate reporting of IDEA fiscal data by a State,
which may lead to noncompliance with IDEA fiscal requirements and
potential monetary consequences, including the recovery of funds.
The Department has found that because of the complex nature of, and
high-stakes need for meeting, IDEA fiscal requirements, SEA and LA
staff request and readily take advantage of targeted and intensive TA
activities, such as expert-led communities of practice and hands-on
workshops, including workshops devoted to the development of IDEA
fiscal policies and procedures operationalizing State practices, to
build their capacity to address fiscal system needs.
To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA fiscal data by States; to ensure
States have access to TA, including fiscal tools tailored to their
individual circumstances; and to support them in collecting and
reporting complex IDEA fiscal data to improve IDEA programs, the
Department proposes a priority to establish and operate the National
Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect,
Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data.
Proposed Priority
The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative
agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use
Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data Center).
The Fiscal Data Center will provide TA to improve the capacity of
States to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection
requirements under IDEA sections 618 and 642 and increase States'
knowledge of the underlying IDEA fiscal requirements and calculations
necessary to submit valid and reliable data for the following
collections: (1) MFS in Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State
Application; (2) LEA MOE Reduction and CEIS; (3) Description of Use of
IDEA Part B Section 611 Funds reserved for State administration and
other State-level activities in Section III of the IDEA Part B Annual
State Application; (4) Description of Use of Federal IDEA Part C Funds
for the LA and the Interagency Coordinating Council in Section III of
the IDEA Part C Annual State Application; (5) IDEA Part C MOE
requirements; (6) Restricted Indirect Cost Rate/Cost Allocation Plan
Information in Sections III and IV of the IDEA Part C Annual State
Application; and (7) Part C Subgranting, in Section III.F. of the Part
C Annual State Application.
The Fiscal Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum,
the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data;
(b) Increased capacity of States to accurately perform calculations
related to IDEA Part B and Part C statutory and regulatory fiscal
requirements, and submit valid and reliable fiscal data under IDEA Part
B and Part C;
[[Page 6918]]
(c) Improved State fiscal infrastructure to communicate and
coordinate effective IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collections and
reporting strategies among relevant State offices, including SEAs, LAs
and other State agencies, LEAs, schools, public charter schools that
are LEAs, and EIS programs or providers;
(d) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely IDEA
Part B and Part C fiscal data, and enhance State validation procedures
to prevent errors in State-reported IDEA data;
(e) Increased capacity of States to train personnel to meet the
IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting
requirements under sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA; and
(f) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to work with LEAs, including
public charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs or providers to
analyze and use IDEA fiscal data to identify issues and address those
issues through monitoring, TA, and partner involvement.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the current and emerging needs of States and local
systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B
and Part C fiscal data. To meet this requirement, the applicant must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of how SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public
charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs and providers are
meeting IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting
requirements and the underlying statutory and regulatory fiscal
requirements, as well as knowledge of State and local data collection
systems, as appropriate; and
(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to show the
current capacity needs of SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public charter
schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs and providers to meet IDEA Part
B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting requirements; and
(2) Improve how SEAs and LAs use IDEA section 618 fiscal data as a
means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic
strengths and areas for improvement, and indicate the likely magnitude
or importance of the improvements.
(b) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) 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;
(2) 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 website provides more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/central/Resource/100644.
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \6\
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based'' means
the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong
evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that
demonstrates a rationale (as such terms are defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs, LEAs, including
public charter schools that are LEAs, LAs, and EIS providers to report
and use IDEA Part B and Part C data submitted under section 616 and
section 618, as a means of both improving data quality and identifying
strengths and areas for improvement; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(4) 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 expand the knowledge base on--
(A) Fiscal data management and data system integration needed for
IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and reporting;
(B) IDEA fiscal data validation that leads to improvements in the
validity and reliability of fiscal data required by IDEA; and
(C) Effective ways to communicate fiscal data to local consumers
(e.g., parents, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs,
EIS programs or providers, the general public);
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\7\ which must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services;
(B) The products and services that the project proposes to make
available;
(C) The development and maintenance of a high-quality website, with
an easy-to-navigate design, that meets or exceeds government- or
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
(D) The expected reach and impact of universal, general TA;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\8\ which
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``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 products and services that the project proposes to make
available; and
(C) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, including, at a minimum, an
assessment of potential recipients' current infrastructure, available
resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\9\ which
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6919]]
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that
will receive the products and services;
(B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges
reporting high-quality IDEA fiscal data to the Department and the
public, which should, at a minimum, include providing virtual and on-
site consultation to the SEA or LA to--
(1) Implement model practices for the management of IDEA data and
data system integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities
within the State;
(2) Develop, use, or adapt tools to meet State-specific IDEA data
needs;
(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the
management of IDEA data and data system integration work in the future;
and
(4) Implement a cybersecurity plan to ensure a secure IDEA fiscal
data system;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs and LAs
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 plan to prioritize States with the greatest need
for intensive TA to receive products and services;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and LAs 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., SEAs, LAs, regional TA providers, LEAs,
including public charter schools that are LEAs, local EIS programs and
providers, and 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 fiscal
data as well as IDEA fiscal data management and data system
integration; and
(G) The expected impact of intensive, sustained TA; and
(v) How the proposed project will intentionally engage families of
children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities--including
underserved families \10\ and individuals--in the development,
implementation, and evaluation of its products and services across all
levels of TA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For the purposes of this priority, ``underserved families''
refers to foster, kinship, migrant, technologically unconnected, and
military- or veteran-connected families; and families of color,
living in poverty, without documentation of immigration status,
experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, or impacted by the
justice system, including the juvenile justice system. Underserved
families also refers to families that include: members of a
federally or State recognized Indian Tribe; English learners; adults
who experience a disability; members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+); adults in
need of improving their basic skills or with limited literacy; and
disconnected adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) 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, including the process by which
the proposed project will collaborate with Department-funded centers
(including privacy TA centers such as the DaSy Center that provides
Department-funded TA on early childhood data privacy, and the Privacy
Technical Assistance Center) and other federally funded TA centers to
develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a
State; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources, such
as non-Federal funds and in-kind contributions, to achieve the intended
project outcomes; and
(6) Systematically disseminate information, products, and services
to varied intended audiences. To address this requirement the applicant
must describe--
(i) The variety of dissemination strategies the project will use
throughout the five years of the project to promote awareness and use
of its products and services;
(ii) How the project will tailor dissemination strategies across
all planned levels of TA to ensure that products and services reach
intended recipients, and those recipients can access and use those
products and services;
(iii) How the project's dissemination plan is connected to the
proposed outcomes of the project; and
(iv) How the project will evaluate and correct all digital products
and external communications to ensure they meet or exceed government or
industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation or other evidence-building,'' describe how the
project will develop an evaluation plan in consultation with, and to be
implemented by, a third-party evaluator.\11\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions must be related to the project's proposed logic model
required under paragraph (b)(1)(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. In measuring progress of implementation across all levels of
TA, the plan must include criteria for determining the extent to which
the project's products and services reached intended recipients; data,
including feedback from recipients, on how recipients used the products
and services; and the impact of the products and services. The plan
must also specify sources for data, and measures and instruments
appropriate to the evaluation questions, including information on
reliability and validity of the measures and associated instruments
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 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) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of the project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of
[[Page 6920]]
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 project will have processes, resources, and funds
in place to provide equitable access for project staff, contractors,
and partners, who require digital accessibility accommodations; \12\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For information about digital accessibility and
accessibility standards from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act,
visit https://sites.ed.gov/idea/topic-areas/#Accessibility-Creating-Content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) 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.
(e) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,''--
(1) How 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) Allocations of key project personnel and any consultants and
subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate
to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products
and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) How 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 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of
the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A 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; and
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing
targeted and intensive TA to States; and
(5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority
We will announce the final priority in a document in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering public
comments on the proposed priority and other information available to
the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this proposed priority, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of 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 set
forth in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
[[Page 6921]]
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires
that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the proposed priority only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments
in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the
following:
Are the requirements in the proposed priority clearly
stated?
Does the proposed priority contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with its clarity?
Does the format of the proposed priority (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its
clarity?
Would the proposed priority be easier to understand if we
divided it into more (but shorter) sections?
Could the description of the proposed priority in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed priority easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed priority easier
to understand?
To send any comments about how the Department could make the
proposed priority easier to understand, see the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that the proposed priority would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that this
proposed regulatory action would affect are LEAs, including charter
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher
education; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations;
freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal
organizations; and for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs
imposed on an applicant by the proposed priority would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the
benefits of the proposed priority would outweigh any costs incurred by
the applicants.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority would
impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding
under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an
eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity probably would
apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs
of preparing an application.
We believe that the proposed priority would not impose any
additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the
entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence
of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application would likely be the same.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant, because it
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to
support that belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed priority contains information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028. The
proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data
collection.
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
[[Page 6922]]
requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format
(RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all 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.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2025-00985 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P