[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 25, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26919-26926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11608]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0001]
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--IDEA Data
Management Center
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
for the IDEA Data Management Center (Center) under the Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Department may use
this priority in fiscal year (FY) 2025 and later years. This priority
replaces the priority published in the Federal Register on August 5,
2014, and the priority published on July 10, 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
data collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
DATES: The priority is effective July 25, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bae, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A224, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202) 987-1557. 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: 84.373M.
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.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on November 7, 2024 (89 FR 88185). That
document contained background information and our reasons for proposing
the priority.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 14
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. We
received comments on a number of specific topics, including the topics
for TA. Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comments: Eleven commenters specifically expressed support for the
proposed Center, as it would assist States in collecting, reporting,
and determining how to best analyze and use their Part B and Part C
data.
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 data collection, analysis, and reporting
requirements.
Changes: None.
[[Page 26920]]
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Center prioritize
opportunities for automating required data reporting processes to
improve efficiency and reduce the workload for State staff.
Discussion: The Department agrees the Center must support State
educational agencies (SEAs) and lead agencies to implement services
that maximize efficiency. In its proposed approach to intensive,
sustained TA the Center must identify how it will maximize these
investments and reduce inefficiencies. Additionally, the Center must
describe how it will develop products and implement services that
maximize efficiency.
Changes: None.
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.
Part C and Part B, 619 Preschool Data
Comments: All eleven commenters who wrote comments related to the
Center providing TA on Part C and Part B, 619 preschool special
education data were supportive of the expanded scope of the Center to
enhance States' capacity to manage, collect, coordinate, report, and
integrate Part C and Part B preschool special education data.
Specifically, commenters supported expanding the scope to develop, in
partnership with the Department, an open-source electronic tool to
assist States with linking and integrating their IDEA Part C early
intervention and IDEA Part B preschool special education data with
other data or data systems associated with other Federal programs and
services that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their
families.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important to support
the expanded scope to include Part C and Part B preschool special
education data. The expanded scope supports States so that they can
develop and implement Early Childhood Integrated Data Systems (ECIDS)
that coordinate, link, and integrate child-level data in IDEA Part C
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data with other early care
and education program data in order to provide high-quality reporting
of the IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special education
data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; drive program
improvement; improve results for children with disabilities; and
improve compliance accountability.
Changes: None.
Capacity
Comments: Three commenters addressed specific challenges that make
it difficult for many Part C lead agencies to engage in data linking
and data integration activities. Commenters mentioned challenges such
as lack of sufficient fiscal resources, major workforce shortages,
technology, as well as State staff shortages and significant staff
turnover.
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. We also
appreciate the recommendation to assess the readiness of States to
engage in TA on this topic. To address these issues, applicants are
required to identify the process by which the proposed project will
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. Additionally, as part of its intensive, sustained TA,
applicants are required to identify the process by which the proposed
project will address States' challenges associated with integrating
IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data systems (SLDS) and IDEA
Part C and IDEA Part B preschool special education data within ECIDS.
Changes: None.
Focus
Comments: Two commenters suggested that the Center focus on
developing robust resources and supporting States on linking and
integrating data within and across IDEA Part C and Part B 619 before
focusing on cross-sector early childhood integration work, such as work
carried out through the ECIDS system.
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. This variability is
influenced by factors such as staffing, existing data infrastructure,
and resource availability. Additionally, we recognize that engaging in
TA regarding data sharing, linking, and integrating requires a
significant commitment of State staff and resources. The Center's
expected outcomes focus on increasing the 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 and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers,
and young children with disabilities. Recognizing that States differ in
their levels of interest, capability, and commitment, the Department
acknowledges that levels of readiness will vary. The Center will be
equipped to support States based on their unique needs, meeting them
where they are and adapting to their specific circumstances. Some
States may be well-positioned to engage in cross-sector early childhood
integration work, particularly through systems like ECIDS, while others
may still be developing their data systems or needing additional
support with Part C services before integrating with other sectors. In
these cases, a more foundational approach to building data capacity
will be necessary. The Center should align its support with each
State's capacity, focusing on enhancing their ability to collect,
report, analyze, and use Part C and Part B data to improve results and
outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and young children with
disabilities. This nuanced approach ensures that the Center can provide
targeted support, whether that support involves foundational data
integration or more advanced cross-sector collaboration. The Department
is fully committed to embedding this flexibility into the Center's
approach, ensuring that each State receives the right support at the
right time.
Changes: To provide more flexibility in how the Center can support
States based on their levels of readiness, we have changed the
requirement that the Center allocate at least 50 percent of the grant
award to provide targeted and intensive TA to States to only require
the 50 percent allocation to targeted and intensive TA in years three
through five. While the NPP required a specific funding allocation for
this purpose for
[[Page 26921]]
all five years, we recognize that States have varying levels of
readiness, resources, and capacity when it comes to sharing, linking,
and integrating data. In response to comments about how much support
the Part C entities might need, and their varying levels of readiness,
we are changing this requirement to provide maximum flexibility to the
Center in years one and two to support the States based on their levels
of readiness. This change allows for more flexibility in years one and
two for the provision of general TA, if needed, such as the development
of innovative tools, including an open-source electronic tool, that can
better support all States regardless of the stage they are in on data
integration. By allowing the Center to determine how best to develop
and align resources with State readiness, we create an opportunity for
the Center to more effectively budget for product development and TA
provision.
Collaboration/Coordination
Comments: Five commenters pointed out that there may be overlap
between the work of this Center and the National Technical Assistance
Center to Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use
Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data (DaSy Center). Two commenters
expressed concern that the work of this Center could duplicate the
efforts of the DaSy Center, potentially leading to inefficiencies.
Three commenters emphasized the necessity for better coordination
between the two Centers. They noted that both Centers share
complimentary objectives and working together could enhance their
effectiveness and ensure resources are utilized optimally. Another
commenter emphasized the importance of collaborating with centers
funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the related scope between the
proposed IDEA Data Management Center and the DaSy Center and agrees
that coordination will be critical to maximize these investments and
reduce inefficiencies, and agrees that it is important that this Center
work in partnership with the other Federally funded centers. While
related, the scope of the IDEA Data Management Center is not
duplicative of the DaSy Center. They have distinct work scopes with
different focuses. The IDEA Data Management Center supports States in
improving their data systems, helping them manage the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of data. This work includes providing an
open-source tool to assist with data management and reporting. In
contrast, the DaSy Center provides broader support, helping States
develop and use data systems to improve outcomes for young children.
Additionally, as States develop and implement ECIDS, the Department
recognizes the importance of collaborating with centers funded by the
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families. Therefore, applicants must identify the process by which
the proposed project will collaborate with the Office of Special
Education Programs (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 are related to the proposed project.
Changes: None.
Privacy
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center leverage and
coordinate with the Department's Privacy Technical Assistance Center
(PTAC) and other existing resources to ensure strict compliance with
Federal data privacy requirements. The commenter also recommended that
the notice have a clear scope of the privacy and security measures that
will be required so applicants know in advance the requirements that
they will need to follow. Another commentor noted that the explicit
focus on compliance with data privacy, as included in IDEA and the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), will provide
important data security protection.
Discussion: The Department agrees that data systems must allow the
States to comply with applicable privacy requirements, including the
privacy and confidentiality requirements under Parts B and C of the
IDEA and FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR part 99.
As noted in the priority, the Center's work will comply with the
privacy and confidentiality protections under IDEA and FERPA.
Additionally, the Center is expected to increase the capacity of States
to use interagency agreements or other mechanisms to coordinate and
integrate IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data required under sections 616
and 618 of IDEA within their SLDS while meeting the applicable privacy
requirements under Parts B and C of the IDEA and FERPA (which may
include developing or disseminating TA resources on privacy,
interagency agreements on data sharing and/or data coordination, and
integration). Finally, in its proposed approach to targeted,
specialized TA, the Center must identify its approach to collaborate
with centers that provide TA in the area of privacy, including the DaSy
Center and PTAC.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
IDEA Data Management Center.
Priority
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (Data Management
Center). The Data Management Center will respond to State needs as
States determine whether and how to coordinate and integrate their IDEA
Part B and Part C data required to meet the data collection
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA into their longitudinal
data systems (including SLDS and ECIDS) while ensuring applicable IDEA
and FERPA privacy protections are met. This integration will improve
the capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-
quality IDEA Part B and Part C data to establish and meet high
expectations for each child with a disability. The Data Management
Center will help States address challenges with data management
procedures and data systems architecture and better meet current and
future IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and reporting
requirements. The Data Management Center's work will comply with the
privacy and confidentiality protections under IDEA and FERPA. The Data
Management Center will not provide the Department with access to child-
level data and will further ensure that such data is de-identified, as
defined in FERPA at 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1).
The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to use interagency agreements or
other mechanisms to coordinate and integrate IDEA Part B and IDEA Part
C data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their SLDS
while meeting the applicable privacy requirements under Parts B and C
of the IDEA and FERPA (which may include developing or disseminating TA
resources on privacy, interagency agreements on data sharing and/or
data coordination, and integration);
(b) Increased use of IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data within States
by developing products to allow States to report their special
education, preschool special education, and early intervention data to
various partners (e.g., other State agencies, policymakers, school and
early care and education program personnel, local and State school
boards, local educational agency (LEA) administrators, early care and
[[Page 26922]]
education childhood administrators, researchers, charter school
authorizers, parents and advocates, Indian Tribes, and Tribal
organizations) through their longitudinal data systems;
(c) Increased number of States that use data governance and data
management procedures to increase their capacity to meet the IDEA Part
B and IDEA Part C reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA;
(d) Increased capacity of States to utilize their SLDS and ECIDS to
collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B and IDEA
Part C data (including data required under sections 616, 618, and 642
of IDEA);
(e) Increased capacity of States to use their SLDS and ECIDS to
analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children
with disabilities who receive services under IDEA and under Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA),
to improve IDEA and ESEA programs and the outcomes of children with
disabilities; and
(f) Increased capacity of States to coordinate and use available
IDEA Part C early intervention data with IDEA Part B preschool special
education data (and to integrate or link such data with ECIDS, if
applicable) 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 and services
(e.g., child care, Early Head Start, Head Start, publicly funded
preschool, and home visiting programs).
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 State challenges associated with State data management
procedures, data systems architecture, and building EDFacts data files
and reports for timely reporting of the IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C
data to the Department and the public. To meet this requirement the
applicant must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating
the difficulties that States have encountered in the collection and
submission of valid and reliable IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical
issues and policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B data and IDEA
Part C collections and EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA Part B
and IDEA Part C data collections; and
(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation
of integrating IDEA Part B data within SLDS and IDEA Part C and IDEA
Part B preschool special education data within ECIDs, and the reporting
of high-quality IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data to the Department and
the public.
(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, 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 \1\
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the 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 data collection strategies, data
management procedures, and data systems architecture; 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 identify or develop the knowledge base on
States' data management processes and data systems architecture;
(ii) A plan to provide a range of products and services to--
(A) Improve States' capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B and
Part C data required under sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA through
their SLDS and other applicable data systems; and
(B) Improve States' capacity to link and integrate (where
determined appropriate by States) their IDEA Part C early intervention
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data with data/data systems
associated with other Federal programs and services that support
infants, toddlers, and young children and their families in order to
report high-quality IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special
education data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The plan
must include, at a minimum, how the project will--
(1) In Years 1 through 5--
(i) Support, in partnership with the Department, the implementation
of an existing open-source electronic tool to assist States in building
EDFacts data files and reports that can be submitted to the Department
and made available to the public. The tool must utilize Common
Education Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all States' needs associated
with reporting the IDEA Part B and Part C data required under sections
616, 618, and 642 of IDEA;
(ii) Provide maintenance to support the appropriate functionality
of the open-source electronic tool as changes are made to data
collections, reporting requirements, file specifications, and CEDS
(such as links within the system to include TA products developed by
other Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and Department-funded
centers or contractors);
(iii) Provide TA focused on data governance to facilitate the use
of the open-source electronic tool and training to State staff to
implement the open-source electronic tool;
(iv) Revise the CEDS ``Connections'' to calculate metrics needed to
report the IDEA Part B and Part C data required under sections 616 and
618 of IDEA;
(v) Develop other outputs (e.g., reports, Application Programming
Interface, new innovations) of an open-source electronic tool that can
support reporting by States of IDEA Part B data to different partner
groups (e.g., LEAs, charter schools, legislative branch, parents);
(vi) Implement strategies to support the inclusion of other OSEP
and Department-funded TA centers' products within the open-source
electronic tool or build connections that
[[Page 26923]]
allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part B data efficiently into the other TA
products;
(vii) Support a user group of States that are using an open-source
electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA; and
(viii) Develop products and presentations that include tools and
solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system
architecture for reporting the IDEA Part B and Part C data required
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(2) In Years 2 through 5--
(i) Develop, in partnership with the Department, an open-source
electronic tool to assist States with linking and integrating their
IDEA Part C early intervention and IDEA Part B preschool special
education data with other data/data systems associated with other
Federal programs and services that support infants, toddlers, and young
children and their families, in order to provide high-quality reporting
of the IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special education
data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; drive program
improvement; improve results for children with disabilities; and
improve compliance accountability. The tool must utilize CEDS and meet
States' needs associated with linking or integrating their Part C early
intervention and Part B preschool special education data with other
data/data systems associated with other Federal programs that support
infants, toddlers, and young children and their families;
(ii) Develop the CEDS ``Connections'' to ensure the electronic tool
is built for States to conduct analyses related to reporting the IDEA
Part C data and IDEA Part B preschool special education data required
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, driving program improvement,
improving results for children with disabilities and their families,
and improving compliance accountability;
(iii) Provide maintenance to support the appropriate functionality
of the open-source electronic tool as changes are made to data
reporting requirements and CEDS;
(iv) Provide TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the
open-source electronic tool and training to State staff to implement
the open-source electronic tool; and
(v) Support a user group of States that are using an open-source
electronic tool for reporting the IDEA Part C data and IDEA Part B
preschool special education data required under sections 616, 618, and
642 of IDEA;
(iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\2\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\3\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with
Department-funded centers (including TA centers such as the DaSy Center
that provides Department-funded TA on early childhood data privacy, and
the PTAC) and other federally funded TA centers to develop and
implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State;
(v) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\4\ which must
identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to address States' challenges associated
with integrating IDEA Part B data within SLDS and IDEA Part C and IDEA
Part B preschool special education data within ECIDS and to report
high-quality IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data to the Department and the
public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site
consultants to SEAs and Part C lead agencies to--
(1) Model and document data management and data system integration
policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the State;
(2) Support the State's use of an open-source electronic tool and
provide technical solutions to meet State-specific data needs;
(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to maintain the
data management and data system integration work in the future; and
(4) Support the State's cybersecurity plan in collaboration, to the
extent appropriate, with the Department's Student Privacy Policy Office
and its Privacy Technical Assistance Center;
(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; 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) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies,
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
(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, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26924]]
(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)(2)(ii);
(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) 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; and
(3) 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) Describe, 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 and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) 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; and
(4) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients.
(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.
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 periods, provided that, if the meeting
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; and
(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) 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;
(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 a new award
at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award, in years three
through five, for providing targeted and intensive TA to States.
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
[[Page 26925]]
``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.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA
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; and distributive impacts);
(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 OIRA 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 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
[[Page 26926]]
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. 2025-11608 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P