[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 25, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26926-26931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces the
priority for the 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. This priority replaces the priority published in the Federal
Register on August 11, 2014, and the priority published on June 16,
2020. We will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a
Center 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: The priority is effective July 25, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles D. Kniseley, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A127, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 245-6313. 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 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.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d),
1442, 1482; 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.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6915). That document
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
priority.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section of this document. The most significant change, as discussed
below, is the removal of the requirement that the Center specifically
engage underserved families to support the development of products and
services.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, three
parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priority. We
received two additional comments 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.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed Center,
and one specifically referenced the benefits that members of its
association have received from the current Center and agreed with the
priority's support to States. Further, the commentor identified the
need for the Center due to changes related to Federal fiscal
requirements that impact the
[[Page 26927]]
fiscal data States must submit to the Department, as well as changes in
lead agency or shifting lead agency responsibility under IDEA Part C to
reorganize their early childhood programs and create offices that serve
children birth through five. No changes were requested.
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 fiscal data collection, analysis, and reporting
requirements.
Changes: None.
Individuals To Be Served
Comments: One commenter indicated that the proposed Center should
serve all constituents fairly, as opposed to focusing on a target
population.
Discussion: The Department agrees that the proposed Center should
focus on providing services to all States and that TA should focus on
meeting the needs of all constituents in the State.
Changes: The Department has clarified that the Center should focus
on meeting the needs of all constituents in a State by removing the
requirement that the Center specifically engage underserved families to
support the development of products and services.
Alignment With Selection Criteria
Comment: None.
Discussion: In using this priority in a notice inviting
applications, the priority's reference to selection criteria should
align with the selection criteria being used.
Changes: We are revising the selection criteria headings with the
priority by removing ``Quality of project services'' and ``Quality of
the project personnel'' and replacing with ``Quality of the project
design'' and just ``Adequacy of resources.'' We are also revising
application and administrative requirements to align with the actual
factors being used under ``Adequacy of resources'' and ``Quality of the
management plan'' in the notice inviting applications.
Final Priority
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C
Fiscal Data.
Priority
The purpose of this 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) Maintenance of State Financial Support (MFS) in
Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State Application; (2) Local
Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (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 Lead Agency (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;
(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 State
educational agencies (SEAs), LAs and other State agencies, LEAs,
schools, public charter schools that are LEAs, and early intervention
services (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 program 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 the project design,'' 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,
[[Page 26928]]
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the
presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \1\
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 for States 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,\2\ which must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``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,\3\ which
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``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,\4\ which
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``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 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 in the
development, implementation, and evaluation of its products and
services across all levels of TA;
(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
[[Page 26929]]
(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.\5\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 must be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in 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,'' how--
(1) The project will make positive efforts to employ and advance in
employment qualified individuals with disabilities;
(2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities;
(3) The proposed project will have processes, resources, and funds
in place to provide access for project staff, contractors, and
partners, who require digital accessibility accommodations; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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.
(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 key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(4) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products
and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(5) How the proposed project will benefit from a variety 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 Program (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
[[Page 26930]]
transition to these 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)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
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 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.
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).
Since this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an
``Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.''
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority 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 priority contains information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028. The final
priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that
[[Page 26931]]
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 the final priority
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 priority imposes 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 determines that
the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.
We believe that the final priority 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.
Diana Diaz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2025-11599 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P