The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.

Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:

1. Avian Influenza Update.

2. Salmonella Update.

3. Mycoplasma Update.

4. New Diagnostic Tests Seeking NPIP Approval.

The meeting will be open to the public; however, APHIS will be unable to allow public participation in session discussions due to time constraints. Written statements may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting. Statements filed with the Committee must include the name of the Agency contact as listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to Docket No. APHIS-2025-0014 when submitting your statements.

If needed, please request reasonable accommodations by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Requests made after that date may be considered, but it may not be possible to fulfill them.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 10).

Equal opportunity practices, in line with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policies and consistent with applicable law, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Determinations for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Purpose and Need

The primary purpose of the proposed action is flood damage reduction and watershed protection. Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are cooperating federal agencies in the watershed planning effort. NRCS is the lead federal agency implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The following agencies have been consulted and their input requested in this planning effort: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency; North Dakota Department of Water Resources (ND DWR); North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality; North Dakota Game and Fish Department; North Dakota Department of Transportation; Sargent County Water Resource District (local project Sponsor); Sargent County Highway Department; Sargent County Sheriff's Office; Sargent County Commission; and Sargent County Emergency Management. NRCS is consulting on both NEPA and section 106 of the NHPA with the North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office and Tribal Nations.

This action is needed because the Shortfoot Creek watershed experiences $677,800 in average annual flood damages due to cropland inundation and damage to roads. Approximately 78 percent of the watershed is farmed for row crops consisting predominantly of corn, soybeans, and spring wheat. Flooding causes disruptions to transportation by overtopping and washing out roads, bridges, and culverts.

Long duration inundation of cropland, particularly in spring floods, results in high transfer of nutrients from soil and residue back to Shortfoot Creek, the Wild Rice River, and Red River downstream. At the 2-year recurrence interval flood, 1,118 acres of cropland are flooded, at the 5-year 4,268 acres are flooded, at the 10-year 5,214 acres are flooded, and at the 100-year 7,293 acres are flooded. The Shortfoot Creek watershed contributes an average annual volume of 15,548 pounds of phosphorus and 70,176 pounds of nitrogen to downstream waterways.

Agricultural non-point source pollution from the U.S. portion of the Red River Basin is a major contributor to the ongoing eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg, the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world, which is degrading a $102 million a year recreational fishing industry, $25 million a year commercial fishing industry, and subsistence fishing by 14 First Nation communities along the lakeshore. Between 1994 and 2007, annual phosphorus loads to Lake Winnipeg increased 71 percent and nitrogen loads increased 18 percent. While the Red River contributes only 15 to 20 percent of overall annual runoff to the lake by volume, from 1994 through 2007 it contributed 70 percent of the total phosphorus load, largely in the form of inorganic dissolved phosphorus, and 78 percent of the annual total nitrogen load. The Wild Rice Watershed is rated within the top 20 percent of Red River Basin sub-watersheds for phosphorus delivery and the top 40 percent for nitrogen delivery. In total, 65 percent of total nitrogen and 75 percent of total phosphorus originates from cropland within the North Dakota portion of the Basin.

Federal investment in nutrient reduction within the Red River Basin is an important contribution to the Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) obligation of the United States. Article IV of the BWT specifies that boundary waters or waters flowing across the boundary are not to be polluted to the injury of health and property to the other. The International Joint Commission (IJC) acts as the mediator for BWT, with International Red River Board (IRRB) established as the IJC sub entity for the Red River Basin. In 2019, IRRB recommended nutrient concentration and load target objectives for the international border crossing of the Red River to IJC, which were formally adopted in 2022 with the concurrence from the U.S. State Department and Global Affairs Canada. The reported average nutrient load for phosphorus in 2017 through 2021 was 170 percent of the standard and for nitrogen was 125 percent. The annual flow-averaged concentration of phosphorus exceeds the standard by 300 to 400 percent.

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in the northcentral Great Plains is one of the most threatened waterfowl habitats in the United States. The Red River Valley is one of the largest artificially drained landscapes in the world, with hundreds of miles of publicly owned drainage ditches, privately owned lateral ditches, and thousands of acres of surface tile drains. The remaining wetlands and grasslands of the PPR are one of the most productive areas in the world for breeding waterfowl and are important habitat for migratory grassland and shore birds. It is estimated that only 3 percent of tallgrass prairie in the Red River Basin remains unplowed and that 85 percent of wetlands were drained as of 1980. Drainage of remaining wetlands continues at a high rate as precipitation has continued to increase, from 1997 to 2009 more than 50,000 individual wetlands were lost within North Dakota alone, a −3.3 percent overall change.

The EIS objective is to formulate and evaluate alternatives that would provide flood damage reduction and watershed protection. The EIS is expected to evaluate two alternatives: one no action alternative and one action alternative.

The alternatives that may be considered for detailed analysis include:

• Alternative 1—No Action Alternative: Taking no action would mean that no Federal action would be taken in the Shortfoot Creek Watershed and implementation of significant flood damage reduction, nutrient reduction, and large-scale wetland and wildlife habitat improvement projects would not occur. The watershed will continue to contribute an average of 19,841 pounds of phosphorus and 50,223 pounds of nitrogen annually to the Maple River, and the downstream Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

• Alternative 2—Proposed Action Alternative—Shortfoot Creek Site 7: The proposed action would construct the Shortfoot Creek Site 7 as a multi-purpose dry dam with interior features designed and operated for the purpose of flood damage reduction, nutrient reduction, and wetland/upland wildlife habitat. The dam would provide 1,250 acre-feet of temporary (less than 10 days inundation at the 10-year recurrence interval flood) floodwater retention for a 32.7 square mile drainage area. It would consist of a 1-mile embankment with a maximum height of 20 feet, 48-inch principal spillway conduit, and structural concrete auxiliary spillway. Reduction of dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DP) will be through two primary means. The first involves construction and operation of two constructed wetlands, totaling 130 acres, on the interior of the dry dam to which water during flood events would be routed with pump and pipelines, held to depths of 2 to 3 feet through the growing season. Low flows will continue down the creek to avoid impacts to aquatic species. Vegetation would uptake DP as it grows and in the early fall the cells would be drained via automated control structures and tile drains below the cells to allow vegetation to be cut, baled, and removed from the floodplain prior to the first frost in 2 out of 3 years. The second primary means of DP reduction occurs through reducing the extents, frequency, and duration of cropland inundation downstream of the dam through modification of the peak flow hydrograph. The project also involves restoring natural sinuosity and channel dimensions to 2.6-miles of straightened or channelized creek upstream of the dam, which will result in restoration of 17.8 acres of riverine wetlands. A ditch plug will be installed to restore 2.8 acres of pothole wetlands. The 130 acres of constructed treatment wetlands will also provide wildlife habitat. Currently 203.4 acres of existing wetlands are hayed throughout the year and improvement to vegetation management to benefit wildlife will provide functional enhancement on those wetlands. In total, a 363-acre mosaic of 354 acres of enhanced, restored, and constructed wetlands and 9 acres of uplands along 2.6-miles of restored creek will be placed in a 50-year conservation easement and managed for wildlife habitat and nutrient reduction.

The EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and NRCS regulations that implement NEPA in 7 CFR part 650.

An NRCS evaluation of this federally assisted action indicates that the proposed alternative may have a significant positive local, regional, national, or international impact on the environment. The project would reduce average annual cropland flood damages by $130,400 and road damages by $1,400 per year. Average annual loads of total phosphorus transported out of the Shortfoot Creek watershed would be reduced by 3,997 lbs. and total nitrogen would be reduced by 19,863 lbs. Restoration of natural riverine conditions and vegetation on 2.6-miles of Shortfoot Creek and its adjacent floodplain will improve wildlife habitat. Construction of embankments will cause a loss of 4.1 acres of existing wetlands. The project would generate a net increase of 354 acres of enhanced, restored, and constructed wetlands and 9 acres of uplands along 2.6-miles of restored creek for the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife species. Short term negative impacts during construction are anticipated regarding traffic, dust, vegetation, and noise.

The following permits and other authorizations are anticipated to be required:

• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit. Implementation of the proposed action would require a CWA section 404 permit from the USACE, which is a cooperating federal agency on the planning effort. Consultation is ongoing and no significant challenges are anticipated given the overall environmental benefits of the project.

• CWA and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project would also require water quality certification under section 401 of CWA and permitting under Section 402 of NPDES, both of which would be issued by the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, which is participating on the interagency team for the watershed plan. Consultation is ongoing and no significant challenges are anticipated given the overall environmental benefits of the project.

• Permit To Construct or Modify a Dam. The project will require authorization from ND DWR for construction of a dam. ND DWR is participating on the interagency team for the watershed plan and has also provided funding for the planning effort. No significant challenges are anticipated given the project is being designed to meet State of North Dakota dam safety standards.

• Water Appropriation Permit. The project may require a conditional water use permit from ND DWR for construction of a dam that will temporarily retain water during flood events. ND DWR is participating on the interagency team for the watershed plan and has also provided funding for the planning effort.

• Floodplain Permit. The project will require a floodplain development permit from Sargent County. Sargent County is participating on the interagency team for the watershed plan and no significant challenges are expected given the beneficial flood damage reduction effects of the project.

• NHPA Section 106. Consultation with Tribal Nations and the North Dakota State Historical Society are ongoing, as required by NHPA. The NRCS Class III Cultural Resources report recommendation for the alternative is “No Historic Properties Affected.” To date no concerns have been raised by any entities, however consultation under NHPA is ongoing.

A Draft EIS (DEIS) will be prepared and circulated for review and comment by agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and the public for at least 45 days as required by the regulations in 7 CFR 650.13. The DEIS is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register , approximately 6 months after publication of this NOI. A Final EIS is anticipated to be published within 6 months of completion of the public comment period for the DEIS.

NRCS will decide whether to implement one of the action alternatives as evaluated in the EIS. A Record of Decision will be completed after the required 30-day waiting period and will be publicly available. The responsible Federal official and decision maker for NRCS is Dan Hovland, North Dakota State Conservationist.

Public scoping meetings will be held to further develop the scope of the DEIS. An initial scoping meeting was held on June 15, 2016, at the Sargent County Courthouse in Forman, ND. An additional public scoping meeting was held March 27, 2025, Sargent County Courthouse (2nd floor), 355 Main Street South. The meeting was both in-person and may be accessed virtually at https://tinyurl.com/Shortfoot-Creek-Dam-Meeting. A recording of the meeting may be accessed at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/conservation-by-state/north-dakota/shortfoot-creek-watershed-plan.

NRCS will coordinate the scoping process as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8 (54 U.S.C. 306108) to help fulfill the NHPA review process, as amended. The USACE and USFWS have declined to participate in the NRCS led NHPA process and instead intend to use their agency specific NHPA processes.

NRCS invites agencies, Tribes, consulting parties, and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the Shortfoot Creek Watershed and the Red River Basin to provide comments concerning the scope of the analysis and identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to the Proposed Action.

The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist NRCS in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and NHPA.

NRCS will consult with Native American Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with the regulations in 36 CFR 800.2 and 800.3, Executive Order 13175, and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources and historic properties, will be given due consideration.

This document is published as specified by the NEPA regulations regarding publication of an NOI to issue an EIS (7 CFR part 650). Watershed planning is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended and the Flood Control Act of 1944.

The title and number of the Federal Assistance Programs, as found in the Assistance Listing, 1 to which this document applies is 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. This program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any phone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail: (1) mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Background

On June 11, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register , Certain Alkyl Phosphate Esters from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders. 1 In that notice, we incorrectly stated that the date for the end of provisional measures in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation was June 2, 2025, rather than June 1, 2025.

In the Federal Register of June 11, 2025, in FR Doc 2025-10630 on page 24581, in the first column, in the second paragraph under the heading “Provisional Measures—AD,” correct the first two sentences to read as follows:

The provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the LTFV Preliminary Determination, { 2 } ended on June 1, 2025. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, 3 Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of alkyl phosphate esters from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after June 1, 2025, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register .

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with May anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, comments, or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

In the event that Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based either on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR) or questionnaires in which we request the quantity and value (Q&V) of sales, shipments, or exports during the POR. Where Commerce selects respondents based on CBP data, we intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice. Where Commerce selects respondents based on Q&V data, Commerce intends to place the Q&V questionnaire on the record of the review within five days of publication of the initiation notice. In either case, we intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation notice in the Federal Register . Comments regarding the CBP data (and/or Q&V data (where applicable)) and respondent selection should be submitted within seven days after the placement of the CBP data/submission of the Q&V data on the record of the review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments within five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

In the event that Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating AD rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of the review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of the AD proceeding ( e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to the review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.

Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Q&V questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

With respect to AD administrative reviews, we intend to rescind the review where there are no suspended entries for a company or entity under review and/or where there are no suspended entries under the company-specific case number for that company or entity. Where there may be suspended entries, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the POR, it may notify Commerce of this fact within 30 days of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register for Commerce to consider how to treat suspended entries under that producer's or exporter's company-specific case number.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 1 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single AD deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews of AD orders in which a Q&V questionnaire is issued must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, and respond to the Q&V questionnaire.

For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to Commerce no later than 14 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. In addition to filing a Separate Rate Certification with Commerce no later than 14 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding  2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name, 3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Application will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Applications are due to Commerce no later than 14 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for individual examination. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

Commerce may establish a certification process for companies whose exports to the United States could contain both subject and non-subject merchandise. Companies under review that were deemed to not be eligible to participate in the certification program of that proceeding may submit a Certification Eligibility Application to establish that they maintain the necessary systems to track their sales to the United States of subject and non-subject goods.

All firms listed below that are not currently eligible to certify but wish to establish certification eligibility are required to submit a Certification Eligibility Application. The Certification Eligibility Application will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/Certification-Eligibility-Application.pdf.

Certification Eligibility Applications must be filed according to Commerce's regulations and are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after the publication of the Federal Register notice.

Exporters and producers that are not currently eligible to certify, who submit a Certification Eligibility Application, and are subsequently selected as mandatory respondents must respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents for Commerce to consider their Certification Eligibility Application.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2026.

None.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order ( i.e., the period following the expiry of provisional measures and before definitive measures were put into place), if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures ( e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the Final Rule, 15 available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-07-17/pdf/2013-17045.pdf, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 16

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the Final Rule. 17 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification requirements.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 18 In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This policy also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Please review the Final Rule, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

On April 14, 2025, notice was published in the Federal Register (90 FR 15563) that a request for a scientific research permit to take Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The permit was issued on June 17, 2025, and authorizes the applicant to continue research on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon to determine their abundance, distribution, habitat use, and migration dynamics in the coastal rivers and estuaries of North Carolina basins (Cape Fear, Neuse, Tar/Pamlico, Roanoke/Chowan). Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon may be captured using gill nets, trammel nets, or trawls, measured, weighed, tagged (PIT, Floy, T-bar), biologically sampled (tissue), and photographed/videoed. A subset of Atlantic sturgeon may be anesthetized and receive an internal acoustic tag. In addition, these same research procedures may be conducted on Atlantic sturgeon captured under other authority in the Frying Pan Shoals area of North Carolina to determine habitat use. Early life stages of Atlantic sturgeon may be lethally collected. The permit is valid through June 30, 2035.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Section 4(j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2053(j), requires the Commission to establish an agenda for action under the laws the Commission administers and, to the extent feasible, select priorities for action at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 4(j) of the CPSA provides further that when establishing its agenda and priorities, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing and provide an opportunity for the submission of comments.

The hybrid public hearing will be held on July 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EDT in person at CPSC's headquarters and remotely via webinar. The notice for the hearing will also be made available on the CPSC website on the public calendar: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/Public-Calendar . Individuals who plan to attend the meeting remotely should use the following link to access the meeting: https://events.gcc.teams.microsoft.com/event/0a0f4c40-f6e3-4465-8bc4-14cf2e840e76@7f5de26c-a63d-475c-9b6c-4126a914e132. 1

The Commission is preparing the agency's fiscal year 2026 Operating Plan and fiscal year 2027 Congressional Budget Request. Fiscal year 2026 begins on October 1, 2025, and fiscal year 2027 begins on October 1, 2026. Through this notice, the Commission invites the public to comment on the Commission's agenda and priorities that will be established in the fiscal year 2026 Operating Plan and the fiscal year 2027 Congressional Budget Request. Proposed priorities should be aligned with the agency's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2023-2026, which is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/about-cpsc/agency-reports/performance-and-budget.

Persons who desire to make oral presentations at the hearing on July 16, 2025—in person or remotely—should send an email to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov not later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 9, 2025. Texts of intended oral presentations should be captioned “Agenda and Priorities FY 2026 and/or 2027” and must be received not later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 9, 2025. Oral presentations—in person or remotely—should be limited to approximately 5 minutes. The Commission reserves the right to impose further time limitations or other restrictions on presentations.

If you do not want to make an oral presentation but would like to provide written comments, you may do so. Written comments should be captioned, “Agenda and Priorities FY 2026 and/or 2027,” and sent to Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov no later than 5 p.m. EDT on July 9, 2025. There is no length restriction for written comments.

On June 18, 2025, the DoD published 2025-11195 at 90 FR 26038. Subsequent to publication of the notice in the Federal Register , DoD realized the Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number text in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section was not correct.

On page 26038, in the first column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number text is corrected to read as follows:

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense (DoD) Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Institutional Compliance Program (ICP); OMB Control Number 0704-VEPP.

Purpose of Program: The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program is designed to improve results for children with disabilities by: (1) promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) supporting educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for children with disabilities; (3) providing support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and (4) providing accessible educational materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner.

Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.327F.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.

Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 674(b) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1474(b) and 1481(d)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

National Center to Improve Faculty Capacity to Use Educational Technology in Special Education Personnel and Leadership Preparation Programs.

Background:

Educational technology includes a range of technologies, from those that are universally designed to support all learners to highly customized assistive technology (AT) devices designed to support the needs of individual learners with disabilities.

To realize the power of educational technology, educators must be adequately prepared, have confidence in their ability to integrate and implement educational technology in their teaching, and understand emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) (Anderson & Putman, 2020).

For educators to effectively implement educational technology, institutions of higher education (IHEs) that prepare and provide continuing education must integrate educational and assistive technologies into their programs of study so that special education personnel and leadership program graduates have experienced effective educational technology integration. IHE faculty vary in their content expertise, experiences in course design, and technological knowledge and skills for teaching and learning, and this variability influences their use of educational technology (Hughes et al., 2016; Vogel et al., 2024). Challenges for faculty at IHEs include the time commitment needed to change instructional approaches and lack of access to sustained professional development to support the continued use of educational technology (Polly et al., 2021; See also Case Studies by the Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning available at https://ciddl.org/case-studies/ ). Additional challenges exist when IHEs move special education personnel preparation programs or leadership preparation programs that have historically operated on campus and in-person to virtual programs that operate exclusively online (Karchmer-Klein, 2020). Competencies needed by faculty at IHEs to effectively prepare future educators and leaders have been proposed, and approaches to the acquisition of these competencies need to be explored (Foulger et al., 2017). Institutional incentives to increase faculty knowledge and use of educational technology exist ( e.g., reduced teaching load, financial compensation) but often are not offered (Kolb et al., 2018). In addition, educational technology continues to rapidly expand and evolve, which presents challenges for faculty at IHEs to stay up to date on innovative tools and strategies. Keeping current on educational technology is critical, as advances in AI and educational technology have the potential to significantly impact special education practices (Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning, 2024; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024; Waterfield et al., 2024).

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a National Center to Improve Faculty Capacity to Use Educational Technology in Special Education Personnel and Leadership Preparation Programs. For the purposes of this priority, educational technology includes AT devices  1 and AI. 2 This project will support faculty at IHEs by improving their knowledge and use of educational technology, and their capacity to sustain its use in special education personnel and leadership preparation programs.

The project must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased knowledge of faculty at IHEs about the range of educational technologies that can be used within special education personnel and leadership preparation programs;

(b) Increased capacity of faculty at IHEs to use a range of educational technologies within special education personnel and leadership preparation programs;

(c) Increased capacity of faculty within and across IHEs to establish and sustain professional learning networks related to the use of educational technologies within special education personnel and leadership preparation programs to keep up with technological innovations;

(d) Increased integration of educational technologies and practices throughout special education personnel and leadership preparation programs; and

(e) Increased number of special education personnel and leadership preparation program graduates who enter the field well-prepared to integrate educational technologies and innovative technology practices, especially evidence-based technology and practices that improve literacy outcomes, to better serve children with disabilities and their families.

In addition, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the following requirements:

(a) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will address faculty needs at IHEs to identify, select, use, and integrate educational technology into their special education personnel and leadership preparation programs. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(1) Present information on the types of educational technology that can be used in special education personnel and leadership preparation programs that support both in-person and distance learning;

(2) Present information on the extent to which special education personnel and leadership preparation programs have currently integrated educational technology, including AT, into their courses and content; and

(3) Identify systemic barriers, gaps, or challenges to integrating educational technology in special education personnel and leadership preparation programs.

(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;

Note: The following website provides more information on logic models: https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/resource/tooltoolkit/program-evaluation-toolkit.

(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;

(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based  3 practices (EBPs) on educational technology for special education personnel and leadership preparation programs. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current literature and research on—

(A) Educational technology, including technologies that support distance learning, for special education personnel and leadership preparation programs; the evidence base related to its effectiveness; and the effective use of such technologies;

(B) How to support faculty at IHEs in the use of educational technology to prepare future special educators and leaders; and

(C) Factors associated with the integration of educational technology, including technologies that support distance learning, into courses and components of special education personnel and leadership preparation programs, and how to address those factors;

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current literature and research in the development and refinement of frameworks for integrating technology in preparation programs and engaging in sustained professional learning networks;

(iii) How the proposed project will identify faculty at IHEs or preparation programs that have promising approaches and practices for integrating educational technology in its special education personnel and leadership preparation programs, and incorporate that information into the development and refinement of the framework;

(iv) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA to IHE faculty within special education personnel and leadership preparation programs; and

(v) 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 TA 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 related to educational technology for special education personnel and leadership preparation programs, its effectiveness, and how to use the technologies; and

(ii) How it proposes to engage constituents in the development and refinement of a framework for—

(A) How to support IHE faculty to acquire needed competencies for integrating educational technology within special education personnel and leadership preparation programs; and

(B) Increasing capacity of faculty within and across IHEs to create and sustain professional learning networks related to educational technology and its integration in special education personnel and leadership preparation programs;

(iii) The proposed approach to universal, general TA, 4 which must describe—

(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;

(iv) The proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 5 which must describe—

(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 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;

(D) How the proposed project will ensure continuity of TA services to special education personnel and leadership preparation programs to implement previously developed technology integration plans; and

(E) The expected impact of targeted, specialized TA;

(v) The proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 6 which must describe—

(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 designed to increase the integration of educational technologies in special education personnel and leadership preparation programs;

(B) The proposed approach to supporting faculty at IHEs in implementing the frameworks for integrating technology in preparation programs and engaging in sustained professional learning networks, which must include a plan to measure the readiness of potential recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current use of educational technology in the delivery of coursework, technology resources at the IHE, and ability to build educational technology capacity at the institutional level; and

(C) The expected impact of intensive, sustained 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; 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  7 evaluator. The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions across all planned levels of TA, 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. In measuring progress of implementation across all levels of TA, the plan should 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 should 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 (APR); 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 applicant will ensure adequacy of resources for the proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project by addressing all aspects of the selection criteria for this section;

(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;  8 and

(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, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

(d) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—

(1) 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;

(2) The proposed project will implement project management techniques to ensure the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe how the management plan for the proposed project addresses all aspects of the selection criteria for this section; and

(3) 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 two-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP;

(3) Provide an assurance that the project will reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are conducted virtually;

(4) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(5) Provide an assurance that the project will engage doctoral students or post-doctoral fellows in the project to increase the number of future leaders in the field who are knowledgeable about integration of educational technology in special education personnel and leadership preparation programs;

(6) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website; and

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

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including—

(a) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(b) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances, a failure to make substantial progress, or where grantees have not maintained financial and administrative management systems that meet requirements in 2 CFR 200.302, Financial management, and 2 CFR 200.303, Internal controls. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.

References:

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474, 1481, and 1482.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, 99, and 100. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Guidance), as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $700,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $700,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies; local educational agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104528), and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-30488/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2025.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (15 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.

(2) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies.

(b) Quality of the project design (30 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.

(2) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.

(3) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.

(4) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

(5) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(c) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.

(5) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a dissemination strategy that is likely to promote others' learning from the project.

(d) Adequacy of resources (20 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

(2) The extent to which the evaluator has the qualifications, including the relevant training, experience, and independence, required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project, including experience conducting evaluations of similar methodology as proposed and with evaluations for the proposed population and setting.

(3) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.

(4) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(5) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the management plan (15 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(3) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.

(4) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied, then the scores under selection criterion (d) Adequacy of resources will be used to break the tie.

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process.

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the System for Award Management's (SAM) Responsibility/Qualification reports (formerly referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in the Responsibility/Qualification reports in SAM.

If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. See the standards in 2 CFR 170.105 to determine whether you are covered by 2 CFR part 170.

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an APR that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and services judged to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantial content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and services judged to be of high relevance to improving outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

• Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and services judged to be useful in improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the project meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the project to report on such alignment in its annual and final performance reports.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package 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.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary the authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide technical assistance (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 fiscal year 2025 is $42,657,297, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. For fiscal year 2025 the Secretary plans to reserve $27,500,000. 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 (ALN): 84.373F.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.

Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. This priority is from the notice of final priority (NFP) for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data.

Background:

The Department prioritizes supporting States in meeting the requirements of IDEA to collect, report, analyze, and use valid and reliable IDEA fiscal data; and assisting them in ensuring that funds are used consistent with IDEA requirements to implement effective programs and services that improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families. While States have identified benefits to effectively collecting and using their fiscal data to meet the requirements under IDEA and ensure that they do not experience monetary consequences because of inaccurate data, they have expressed the need for support in building their knowledge and expertise to help ensure compliance with IDEA's fiscal data requirements, and to use the data to identify issues and improve State systems.

The Department has found that because of the complex nature and high-stakes need for meeting IDEA fiscal requirements, changes in Federal fiscal reporting requirements, modifications in State funding formulas, turnover in State staff, and organizational changes, States request and readily take advantage of TA activities devoted to the development and operationalization of IDEA fiscal policies and procedures, systems to collect and report complex IDEA fiscal data to improve IDEA programs, and strategies to address fiscal system needs.

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 fiscal 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 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;

(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based  1 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(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—

(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—

(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;

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 4 which must describe—

(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, 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. 5 The evaluation plan must—

(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,” 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

(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 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; and

(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) 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 a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

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, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) 34 CFR 300.702. (e) The NFP.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $3,900,000 in year one and $4,200,000 in years two through five.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $3,900,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in year one and $4,200,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in years two through five.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104528), and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-30488/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2025.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (10 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.

(2) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.

(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.

(2) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.

(3) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.

(4) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

(5) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(c) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.

(d) Adequacy of resources (15 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.

(2) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(3) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(3) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.

(4) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied, then the scores under selection criterion (d) Adequacy of resources will be used to break the tie.

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the System for Award Management's (SAM) Responsibility/Qualification reports (formerly referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in the Responsibility/Qualification reports in SAM.

If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

6. In General: In accordance with the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with—

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you informally.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified or individuals with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the target audiences to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the target audiences to be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program includes the percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the project meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the project to report on such alignment in its annual and final performance reports.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package 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.

Full Text of Announcement Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program:

The purpose of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program (ETechM2 Program) is to improve results for children with disabilities by (1) promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) supporting educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for children with disabilities; (3) providing support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and (4) providing accessible educational materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner.

Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.327S.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.

Eligible Applicants:

State educational agencies (SEAs); local educational agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

Type of Award: Cooperative Agreements.

Estimated Available Funds: $2,000,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $385,000 per year.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $400,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 5.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities specified in sections 674(b)(2) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1474(b)(2) and 1481(d).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 this priority is an absolute priority. The absolute priority is from the allowable activities in, or otherwise authorized under, the statute. 1 We consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Use of Evidence-based Technology-based Tools or Approaches that Improve Reading Outcomes for Children with, or At Risk for, Disabilities.

Background:

The 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)  2 indicates that only one in 10 students with disabilities in fourth or eighth grade reads at NAEP proficient  3 levels or above. Evidence-based reading instruction and interventions that utilize technology provide opportunities to further support the delivery of services to children with disabilities.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to support the implementation of evidence-based technology-based tools or approaches that improve reading outcomes for children with, or at risk for, disabilities (hereafter referred to as “children with disabilities”) in pre-kindergarten (PK), elementary, middle, or high school instructional settings;

Through this priority, the Department intends to fund five cooperative agreements to establish and operate projects that achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Improved reading outcomes for children with disabilities in PK-12 instructional settings using an evidence-based technology-based tool or approach;  4

(b) Improved educator  5 implementation of an evidence-based technology-based tool or approach to deliver evidence-based instruction and interventions to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities;

(c) Improved educator and family engagement regarding the use of an evidence-based technology-based tool or approach to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities; and

(d) Sustained use of the evidence-based technology-based tool or approach within the instructional setting.

Application Requirements:

At a minimum, to be considered for funding under this priority in the application, applicants must describe the—

(a) Evidence-based technology-based tool or approach that improves reading outcomes and is ready to use at the time of the application;

(b) Reading outcomes of children with disabilities that will be improved by implementing the technology-based tool or approach;

(c) Approach to increase educators' implementation of the technology-based tool or approach to improve the reading outcomes of children with disabilities in an instructional setting; and

(d) Accessible products and resources  6 that will help educators and families to effectively use and implement the technology-based tool or approach.

In addition to these application requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the following requirements:

(a) In the narrative section of the application under “Significance” describe how the proposed project will address the need for a technology-based tool or approach to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities. To meet this requirement applicants must—

(1) Describe the developed technology-based tool or approach and core components that improve reading outcomes that are based on at least promising evidence;

(2) Describe the educators who will implement the technology-based tool or approach and the population of children with disabilities who will benefit from the technology-based tool or approach;

(3) Describe how the technology-based tool or approach is currently being implemented and has improved reading outcomes for children with disabilities, if applicable;

(4) Describe any Federal funding, if applicable, within the last five years related to this technology-based tool or approach, how the funding has supported development and current implementation, and demonstrated improved outcomes for children with disabilities;

(5) Describe how the technology-based tool or approach will improve educators' implementation of evidence-based reading instruction to improve outcomes for children with disabilities in PK-12 instructional settings; and

(6) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data demonstrating the need for the identified technology-based tool or approach to enhance the reading outcomes for children with disabilities.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project design” how the proposed project will—

(1) Develop and refine products and resources that incorporate principles of universal design for learning  7 to support full implementation and use of the technology tool or approach to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities;

(2) Recruit and engage educators and children with disabilities who are intended to benefit from the technology-based tool or approach; and

(3) Address barriers or challenges of implementation and utilize stages of implementation science with a variety of sites, such as public or private school buildings or early childhood settings, to support, sustain, and scale the evidence-based technology-based tool or approach.

To address this requirement, the applicant must include the following—

(i) Two product and resource development sites. Applicants must describe at least two proposed product and resource development sites, where the project would conduct iterative development of the products and resources intended to support the implementation of the technology-based tool or approach and produce, by the end of year one, preliminary feasibility and usability data. Applicants must include a letter in Appendix A from at least one site that indicates agreement to serve as a product and resource development site, at a minimum, in year one of the project.

(ii) Three pilot sites, one of which must be a site that is eligible for Title I funds under Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Pilot sites are the sites in which ongoing refinement of the developed products and resources, and the continued collection of feasibility and usability data, will occur. Applicants must describe how they would work with a minimum of three pilot sites no later than year two of the project, where the project would continue to refine the developed products and resources; collect feasibility and usability data; and demonstrate that the educational technology-based tool or approach is improving reading outcomes for children with disabilities.

(iii) Ten dissemination study sites, three of which must be sites that are eligible for Title I funds under Part A of the ESEA. Applicants must describe and complete work with a minimum of five dissemination sites by the end of year three and another five by the end of year four of the project period, to evaluate the performance of the technology-based tool or approach on educators' implementation and reading outcomes for children with disabilities. Dissemination sites would receive less implementation support from the project than development and pilot sites.

Note: A site may not serve in more than one category ( i.e., development, pilot, dissemination).

(iv) A plan to systematically disseminate information about the technology-based tool or approach to varied audiences throughout the five-year project period that extends beyond conference presentations and articles to reach intended audiences, support implementation. This plan must describe—

(A) How the project will utilize the fifth year of the project to scale the use of the technology-based tool or approach by educators and children with disabilities to improve reading outcomes; and

(B) How the project will ensure that all digital products and all external communications are routinely evaluated for and, if necessary, remediated to meet or exceed government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources,” how—

(1) The applicant and any key partners or sites have adequate resources and demonstrated commitment to carry out the proposed activities; and

(2) Proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—

(1) The proposed project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes and how the proposed project team will include qualified experts on topics such as technology, education theory, practice, research methods, and scale-up or commercialization to support sustainability and dissemination;

(2) 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;

(3) 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;

(4) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and resources provided are of high quality, and are relevant and useful to educators and children with disabilities; and

(5) The proposed project will integrate feedback from a variety of perspectives, including families, educators and those from the intended users.

(e) Include a plan in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project evaluation or other evidence-building” that describes—

(1) A logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or conceptual framework that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(2) The formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities and how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project;

(3) A method for assessing—

(i) The formative and summative data from the development sites that informs the implementation support needs;

(ii) The readiness of pilot sites to pilot the technology-based tool or approach, including, at a minimum, their current practices, technology or instructional alignment, available resources, and ability to build capacity;

(iii) The formative and summative data collected from the pilot sites to refine and evaluate the products and resources to support full implementation;

(iv) The training and ongoing professional learning needs of educators to implement the technology-based tool or approach with fidelity;

(v) The dissemination and scale up efforts to spread the use of the technology-based tool or approach by educators to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities;

(4) How the project will collect summative data to report on the quality, relevance, usefulness, and efficacy of the products and resources developed to support implementation of the technology-based tool or approach to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities; and

(5) How, by the end of the project period, the project will provide—

(i) Information supported by the project evaluation on the products and resources, including accessibility features, that will enable other sites to implement and sustain implementation of the technology-based tool or approach;

(ii) Information in the project's final performance report, including implementation data, on how educators utilized the technology-based tool or approach; how the technology-based tool or approach was implemented with fidelity; and the effectiveness of the technology-based tool or approach in improving reading outcomes for children with disabilities;

(iii) Data on how the technology-based tool or approach changed educators' practices to improve reading outcomes for children with disabilities; and

(iv) A dissemination plan that includes scaling up the technology-based tool or approach and accompanying products beyond the sites directly involved in the project.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must include—

(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) In Appendix A, the logic model by which the proposed project will develop project plans and activities and achieve its intended outcomes. The logic model must depict, at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, and intended outcomes of the proposed project; and

Note: The following website provides more information on logic models: https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/resource/tooltoolkit/program-evaluation-toolkit.

(3) In the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A two-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.

(ii) One annual trip, to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP. Provide an assurance that the project will reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter if the meetings are conducted virtually.

Cohort Collaboration and Support:

OSEP project officers will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must—

(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to collaborate on implementation and project issues; and

(b) Provide annual information to OSEP using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection and the processes for implementation and use of the technology-based tool or approach.

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (15 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which findings from the project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational challenges and their effective implementation (up to 4 points);

(2) The potential effective replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation by a variety of populations or settings (up to 5 points).

(3) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies (up to 6 points).

(b) Quality of the project design (30 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component (up to 5 points);

(2) The likely benefit to the intended recipients, as indicated by the logic model or other conceptual framework, of the services to be provided (up to 7 points);

(3) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services (up to 10 points); and

(4) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources (up to 8 points).

(c) Adequacy of resources (15 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization (up to 5 points);

(2) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project (up to 5 points); and

(3) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project (up to 5 points).

(d) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (up to 5 points);

(2) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population (up to 4 points);

(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (up to 3 points);

(4) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population (up to 6 points); and

(5) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors (up to 2 points).

(e) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (up to 5 points);

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-based building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project (up to 5 points);

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes (up to 5 points); and

(4) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings (up to 5 points).

Performance Measures:

For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the ETechM2 Program. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of ETechM2 Program products and services judged to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantial content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of ETechM2 Program products and services judged to be of high relevance to improving outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

• Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of ETechM2 Program products and services judged to be useful in improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

• Program Performance Measure 4.1: The Federal cost per unit of accessible educational materials funded by the ETechM2 Program.

• Program Performance Measure 4.2: The Federal cost per unit of accessible educational materials from the National Instructional Materials Access Center funded by the ETechM2 Program.

• Program Performance Measure 4.3: The Federal cost per unit of video description funded by the ETechM2 Program.

Program Performance Measures 1, 2, and 3 apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on Program Performance Measures 1, 2, and 3 as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1471, 1481, 1482.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division.

Administrative Cost Limitation: This program includes administrative cost limitations under 20 U.S.C. 1482(b)(3)(B).

Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

Other General Requirements:

1. Recipients of funding under this program must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

2. Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

Application and Submission Information:

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-30488 (89 FR 104528, December 23, 2024).

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to intergovernmental review under Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about this process is in the application package. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2025.

3. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

4. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied, then the scores under selection criterion (c) Adequacy of resources will be used to break the tie.

5. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process.

6. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Before awarding grants under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. The Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

7. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the System for Award Management's (SAM) Responsibility/Qualification reports (formerly referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in the Responsibility/Qualification reports in SAM.

If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

Award Administration Information:

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception.

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) The Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package 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.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which provides the Secretary with the authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide technical assistance (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 fiscal year 2025 is $42,657,297, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. For fiscal year 2025 the Secretary plans to reserve $27,500,000. 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, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 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.”

Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.373M.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.

Priority: This competition includes one priority. This priority is from the notice of final priority (NFP) for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

IDEA Data Management Center.

Background:

The Department prioritizes supporting States in meeting the requirements of IDEA to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA data (including data reported under IDEA sections 616, 618, and 642), and assisting them in meeting their needs to enhance, streamline, and integrate IDEA data into other data systems such as their State longitudinal data systems (SLDS) and early childhood integrated data systems (ECIDS). States have identified several benefits to having more integrated data systems including, more standardized and streamlined data collection and reporting across programs serving children; better tracking of child level outcomes in areas such as math, literacy, and science; better tracking of system level outcomes such as developmental screening and referral; and more support for program improvement. Data integration across systems allows States to provide administrators, parents, and policymakers more accurate and comprehensive data to evaluate and improve special education and early intervention programs and services.

While States have recognized the benefits of data integration, despite some progress over the past decade, many States indicate that they still struggle to link IDEA data into K-12 and early childhood data systems often because they do not have the expertise, resources, or staffing to develop integrated data systems. States have requested TA to support stronger linkages between SLDS and ECIDS as a way to better respond to IDEA reporting requirements and improve coordination and access to actionable data that they can use to better evaluate program effectiveness, guide policy decisions, refine instructional and intervention strategies, and provide parents with the information they need to support their children's educational and developmental progress.

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 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (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 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 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 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 State challenges associated with State data management procedures, data systems architecture, and building ED Facts 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 ED Facts 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—

(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 ED Facts 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 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;

(iv) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 3 which must identify—

(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 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;

(v) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 4 which must identify—

(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—

(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) Demonstrate, 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.

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, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) 34 CFR 300.702. (e) The NFP.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: $2,700,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $2,700,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104528), and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-30488/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2025.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (10 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.

(2) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially contributions toward improving teaching practice and student learning and achievement.

(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.

(2) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.

(3) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.

(4) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

(5) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(c) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.

(d) Adequacy of resources (15 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

(2) The extent to which the evaluator has the qualifications, including the relevant training, experience, and independence, required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project, including experience conducting evaluations of similar methodology as proposed and with evaluations for the proposed population and setting.

(3) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.

(4) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(5) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(3) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project.

(4) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.

(5) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied, then the scores under selection criterion (d) Adequacy of resources will be used to break the tie.

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the System for Award Management's (SAM) Responsibility/Qualification reports (formerly referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in the Responsibility/Qualification reports in SAM.

If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

6. In General: In accordance with the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with—

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you informally.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of performance measures that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. These measures are:

• Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified or individuals with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

• Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the target audiences to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the target audiences to be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or practice.

• Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program includes the percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.

The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the project meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the project to report on such alignment in its annual and final performance reports.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package 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.

Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, DOE invites comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-NEW;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) Program Longer-Term Follow-up Study;

(3) Type of Request: New;

(4) Purpose: The WDTS SULI Longer-Term Follow-up Study will examine the longer-term impact of SULI on participants' educational and career outcomes. This will allow for program development based on longer-term outcomes. Respondents include SULI participants and a comparison group of eligible applicants who did not participate in the SULI internship.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,400;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 2,400;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,400;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $93,115.

Statutory Authority: Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, continued through Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119-4, March 15, 2025).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 18, 2025, by Harriet Kung, Acting Director, Office of Science, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. The document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

Title: Request for Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information (CBI).

EPA ICR No.: 1250.13.

OMB Control No.: 2070-0075.

ICR Status: This ICR is currently approved through April 30,2026. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA procures contract support to facilitate the performance of certain duties. EPA may require contractors to handle Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Confidential Business Information (CBI). Each contractor employee who will use TSCA CBI in the performance of his or her duties must be authorized for access to TSCA CBI through a multi-step process. The TSCA CBI Protection Manual (EPA Publication 7700 A2, revised October 2003) provides Federal and contractor employees with guidelines and operating procedures for handling TSCA CBI while performing their official duties, as well as the procedures to obtain authorization for access to TSCA CBI.

Specifically, for purposes of this information collection, contractor personnel must submit to EPA the EPA form titled “TSCA CBI Access Request, Agreement, and Approval” (EPA Form 7740-6). The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), uses EPA Form 7740-6 to collect information about contractor personnel so that the Agency can evaluate their suitability for access to TSCA CBI. EPA stores the information on the OPPT Chemical Information System (CIS).

The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

Form number(s): 7740-6.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 514 Information Services and 561 Administrative and Support Services.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, per TSCA section 14 (15 U.S.C. 2613).

Estimated number of potential respondents: 288.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Total estimated burden: 461 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated costs: $25,220 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is an increase of 120 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects the increase in the number of contractors requesting CBI access from 214 to 288. This change is an adjustment.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

On May 9, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations (90 FR 20363; May 14, 2025). Section 7 of E.O. 14294 provides that within 45 days of the order, and in consultation with the Attorney General, each agency should publish guidance in the Federal Register describing its plan to address criminally liable regulatory offenses.

Consistent with that requirement, the FDIC advises the public that by May 9, 2026, the agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, will provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a report containing (1) a list of all criminal regulatory offenses  1 enforceable by the FDIC or the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (2) for each such criminal regulatory offense, the range of potential criminal penalties for a violation and the applicable mens rea standard  2 for the criminal regulatory offense.

As a practical matter, the FDIC does not generally make referrals of criminal regulatory offenses to the DOJ. To the extent that information is uncovered during the agency's supervisory activities that could suggest potential violations of criminal laws, the FDIC's practice is to refer such information to the Office of the Inspector General for the FDIC (FDIC-OIG). The FDIC-OIG then evaluates the information and determines whether a criminal referral to DOJ may be warranted. Where warranted, the FDIC-OIG's office makes referrals to DOJ based upon violations of Federal criminal statutes; the FDIC is not aware of the FDIC-OIG having made any referral to DOJ based upon a criminal regulatory offense in the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the FDIC commits to establishing procedures consistent with the E.O. for any future referral to DOJ involving a potential criminal regulatory offense.

This document announces a general policy, subject to appropriate exceptions and to the extent consistent with law, that when the FDIC is deciding whether to refer alleged violations of criminal regulatory offenses to DOJ, officers and employees of the FDIC should consider the following factors:

• the harm or risk of harm, pecuniary or otherwise, caused by the alleged offense;

• the potential gain to the putative defendant that could result from the offense;

• whether the putative defendant held specialized knowledge or expertise, or was licensed in an industry related to the rule or regulation at issue; and

• evidence, if any is available, of the putative defendant's general awareness of the unlawfulness of his conduct as well as his knowledge or lack thereof of the regulation at issue.

This general policy is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Under the PRA, ( 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 ) Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the agency is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

Under the Government Service Delivery Improvement Act and the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act, along with OMB guidance, agencies are obligated to continually improve the services they provide the public and to collect qualitative and quantitative data from the public to do so.

The purpose of this request is to facilitate the agency's ability to collect feedback from the public to continue to improve its services, thereby facilitating its compliance with statutory requirements and general principles of good governance.

The agency will only submit collections if they meet the following criteria.

• The collections are voluntary;

• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

• The collections are non-controversial;

• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and the agency will comply with applicable legal and policy requirements to ensure its protection;

• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes;

• The agency will follow the procedures specified in any relevant OMB guidance for the required reporting to OMB of data from surveys;

• Outside of the reporting mentioned in the bullet immediately above, if the agency intends to release journey maps, user personas, reports, or other data-related summaries stemming from this collection, the agency must include appropriate caveats around those summaries, noting that conclusions should not be generalized beyond the sample, considering the sample size and response rates. The agency must submit the data summary itself ( e.g., the report) and the caveat language mentioned above to OMB before it releases them outside the agency. OMB will engage in a passback process with the agency.

The agency will collect this information by electronic means, when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. The agency may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.

Form Number(s): OMB Control No. 3090-0321.

Type of Review: Extension of an existing collection.

Affected Public: Collections will be targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future. For the purposes of this request, “customers” are individuals, businesses, and organizations that interact with a Federal Government agency or program, either directly or via a Federal contractor. This could include individuals or households; businesses or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal governments; Federal government; and universities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,101,500.

Estimated Time per Response: Varied, dependent upon the data collection method used. The possible response time to complete a questionnaire or survey may be 3 minutes or up to 1.5 hours to participate in an interview.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100,800.

The agency invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. CMS will not post on Regulations.gov public comments that make threats to individuals or institutions or suggest that the commenter will take actions to harm an individual. CMS continues to encourage individuals not to submit duplicative comments. We will post acceptable comments from multiple unique commenters even if the content is identical or nearly identical to other comments.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a hospice, provided that certain requirements are met by the hospice. Section 1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for an agency or organization seeking designation as a hospice. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of an agency or organization are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 418 specify the conditions that a hospice must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for hospice services.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospice must first be certified by a state survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 418. Thereafter, the hospice is subject to regular surveys by an SA agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.

However, section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national Accrediting Organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at §§ 488.4 and 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require AOs to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS. The Accreditation Commission for Health Care's (ACHC's) current term of approval for their hospice accreditation program expires November 27, 2025.

Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of ACHC's request for continued approval of its hospice accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether the ACHC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation (CoPs) for hospices.

ACHC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its hospice accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on May 1, 2025. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of ACHC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

• The equivalency of ACHC's standards for hospices as compared with CMS' hospice CoPs.

• ACHC's survey process to determine the following:

++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ The comparability of ACHC's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

++ ACHC's processes and procedures for monitoring hospices which are found out of compliance with ACHC's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when ACHC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the SA monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9.

++ ACHC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ ACHC's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ The adequacy of ACHC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

++ ACHC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.

++ ACHC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to ensure that surveys are unannounced.

++ ACHC's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.

++ ACHC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey, together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Because of the large number of public comments, we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, FILSPARI (sparsentan). FILSPARI is indicated to reduce proteinuria in adults with primary immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) at risk of rapid disease progression, generally a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio ≥1.5 g/g. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on reduction of proteinuria. It has not been established whether FILSPARI slows kidney function decline in patients with IgAN. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for FILSPARI (U.S. Patent No. 9,993,461) from Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 30, 2024, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of FILSPARI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for FILSPARI is 5,867 days. Of this time, 5,529 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 338 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: January 27, 2007. The applicant claims November 21, 2018, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was January 27, 2007, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of an earlier IND.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505 of the FD&C Act: March 17, 2022. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for FILSPARI (NDA 216403) was initially submitted on March 17, 2022.

3. The date the application was approved: February 17, 2023. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 216403 was approved on February 17, 2023.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 945 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES ). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see DATES ), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FDA is requesting nomination for voting members on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner of FDA or designee in discharging responsibilities related to the regulation of tobacco products. The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco products and provides appropriate advice, information and recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

The Committee consists of 12 members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among individuals knowledgeable in the fields of medicine, medical ethics, science, or technology involving the manufacture, evaluation, or use of tobacco products. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The Committee includes nine technically qualified voting members, selected by the Commissioner or designee. The nine voting members include seven members who are physicians, dentists, scientists, or health care professionals practicing in the area of oncology, pulmonology, cardiology, toxicology, pharmacology, addiction, or any other relevant specialty. The nine voting members also include one member who is an officer or employee of a state or local government or of the Federal Government, and one member who is a representative of the general public. Members will be invited to serve for terms of up to 4 years.

Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the advisory committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business address and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available. Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the medical device EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER PULMONARY VALVE. EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER PULMONARY VALVE is indicated for use in the management of pediatric and adult patients with severe pulmonary regurgitation as measured by echocardiography who have a native or surgically-repaired right ventricular outflow tract and are clinically indicated for pulmonary valve replacement. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER PULMONARY VALVE (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,716; 9,393,110; 10,179,047; 10,413,407; and 10,537,423 from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 18, 2023, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER PULMONARY VALVE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER PULMONARY VALVE is 1,725 days. Of this time, 1,546 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 179 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: March 29, 2017. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on February 27, 2017. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on March 29, 2017, which represents the IDE effective date.

2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): June 21, 2021. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER PULMONARY VALVE (PMA P200015/Supplement (S011) was initially submitted June 21, 2021.

3. The date the application was approved: December 16, 2021. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P200015/S011 was approved on December 16, 2021.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 436 days, 499 days, 622 days or 965 days of patent term extensions.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES ). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see DATES ), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the medical device EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA RESILIA. The EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA RESILIA Transcatheter Heart Valve system is indicated (1) for relief of aortic stenosis in patients with symptomatic heart disease due to severe native calcific aortic stenosis who are judged by a Heart Team, including a cardiac surgeon, to be appropriate for the transcatheter heart valve replacement therapy and (2) for patients with symptomatic heart disease due to failing (stenosed, insufficient, or combined) of a surgical or transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valve, a surgical bioprosthetic mitral valve, or a native mitral valve with an annuloplasty ring who are judged by a Heart team, including a cardiac surgeon, to be at high or greater risk for open surgical therapy ( i.e., predicted risk of surgical mortality 8% at 30 days, based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score and other clinical co-morbidities unmeasured by the STS risk calculator). Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA RESILIA (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,413,407; 10,433,958; 10,849,741; and 11,213,388) from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 18, 2024, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA RESILIA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA RESILIA is 88 days. Of this time, zero (0) days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 88 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: not applicable . The applicant claims that the length of the testing phase of the regulatory review period is 0 days.