Vol. 78 Friday, 

No. 249 December 27, 2013 

Part IV 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Part 200 

Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; 

Migrant Education Program; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 200 

RIN 1810–AA99 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0119] 

Title I—Improving the Academic 

Achievement of the Disadvantaged; 

Migrant Education Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes 

regulations to implement the Migrant 

Student Information Exchange (MSIX), a 

nationwide, electronic records exchange 

mechanism mandated under title I, part 

C, of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). As a condition of receiving a 

grant of funds under the Migrant 

Education Program (MEP), each State 

educational agency (SEA) would be 

required to collect, maintain, and 

submit minimum health and 

educational information to MSIX within 

established time frames. The proposed 

regulations would facilitate timely 

school enrollment, placement, and 

accrual of secondary course credits for 

migratory children and help the 

Department determine accurate 

migratory child counts and meet other 

MEP reporting requirements. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID at the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Lisa C. 

Gillette, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

3E313, Washington, DC 20202–6135. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

C. Gillette, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3E313, Washington, DC 20202– 

6135. Telephone: (202) 260–1426 or by 

email: lisa.gillette@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding these 

proposed regulations. To ensure that 

your comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final regulations, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

section or sections of the proposed 

regulations that each of your comments 

addresses and to arrange your comments 

in the same order as the proposed 

regulations. We specifically request 

public comment on issues raised in our 

discussion of records of secondary 

school-aged migratory children in 

proposed section 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B) and 

procedures for MSIX data correction in 

proposed section 200.85(e). 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

regulations. Please let us know of any 

further ways we could reduce potential 

costs or increase potential benefits 

while preserving the effective and 

efficient administration of the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these proposed regulations by 

accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 

inspect the comments in person in 

Room 3E315, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, Monday through Friday of each 

week except Federal holidays. Please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed regulations. If 

you want to schedule an appointment 

for this type of accommodation or 

auxiliary aid, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Background 

The educational needs of children of 

migratory agricultural workers and 

migratory fishers present unique 

challenges for educators and our 

Nation’s schools. Migratory workers 

travel from community to community in 

search of temporary and seasonal work. 

Given the nature of their employment, 

migratory workers and their families 

often settle in a single community for a 

short period of time. One consequence 

of this lifestyle and mobility is that the 

children of migratory workers 

frequently enroll in new schools and 

school districts without adequate, and 

in many cases any, documentation of 

their educational and health history. 

In section 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA, 

Congress directed the Secretary, in 

consultation with the States, to ‘‘ensure 

the linkage of migrant student record 

systems for the purpose of electronically 

exchanging, among the States, health 

and educational information regarding 

all migratory students.’’ The statute 

specifies that the linkage of migrant 

student records shall occur in a costeffective manner, utilizing those 

systems that States used before or 

developed after enactment of the latest 

reauthorization of the ESEA in the No 

Child Left Behind Act in January 2002. 

Congress further directed the Secretary, 

in section 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA, to 

seek public comment on (1) the 

‘‘minimum data elements’’ (MDEs) that 

each State receiving MEP funds would 

be required to collect for purposes of the 

electronic transfer of migratory student 

information, and (2) the requirements 

that States must meet for immediate 

electronic access to this information. 

In addition to these specific 

directives, section 1304(b)(3) of the 

ESEA requires each State that applies 

for a grant of MEP funds to include in 

its application a description of how it 

will use MEP funds to promote 

interstate and intrastate coordination of 

services for migratory children. The 

description must include how the State 

will provide for educational continuity 

through the timely transfer of pertinent 

school records when children move 

from one school to another either during 

or outside of the regular school year. All 

States that receive MEP funds do so on 

the basis of consolidated State 

applications authorized in section 9302 

of the ESEA. However, the Department 

requires all SEAs to implement the 

statutory provisions governing program 

design and operation that otherwise 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79223 

would be required of their individual 

program applications. See 67 FR 35967, 

35970–71 (May 22, 2002). 

In early 2000, the Department began 

consulting extensively with migrant 

education stakeholders to identify what 

information is essential to the 

continuity of services for migratory 

children. These consultations included 

State officials, migrant program 

administrators and educators, guidance 

counselors, registrars, and other school 

district officials, migrant health 

officials, and other users of student data. 

On May 28, 2002, the Department 

published for public comment in the 

Federal Register (67 FR 36862–69) a 

notice of proposed requirements and 

minimum data elements for the 

electronic transfer of this information. 

Since then, we have spent considerable 

time and attention consulting with 

migrant education stakeholders and 

addressing their suggestions and 

concerns about the proposed MDEs and 

how MSIX would operate. (Summaries 

of the Department’s consultative 

activities are contained in question and 

answer number 8 of the supporting 

statements for the 2007 and 2011 MDE 

Paperwork Reduction Act submissions.) 

The Department has learned through 

this extensive consultative process that 

the lack of health and educational 

information for migratory children may 

cause delays in student enrollment, lead 

to inappropriate classroom and course 

placements, complicate or hinder the 

accrual of course credits needed for high 

school graduation, and result in 

duplicate services, such as multiple 

assessments and immunizations. As 

such, we determined that the primary 

purpose of MSIX should be to provide 

migrant education and other school 

personnel with the data essential to 

facilitate— 

(1) The timely enrollment of all 

school-aged migrant children; 

(2) The placement of migratory 

students in the appropriate grade level 

and courses of instruction; and 

(3) For secondary students, the 

accrual of course credits needed to 

graduate from high school. 

Further background on the 

Department’s early consultation with 

migrant education stakeholders may be 

found in the Office of Migrant 

Education’s full report to Congress in 

2003, Education of Migratory Children: 

Maintenance and Transfer of Health 

and Educational Information for 

Migrant Students by the States, which is 

available at www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/

account/reporttocongress.pdf. 

School staff at all levels need basic 

enrollment data, and typically need 

proof of immunizations, to place 

students in the correct grade or course 

in a timely manner. Migrant educators 

have stressed, however, that students in 

secondary grades have the greatest need 

for the timely exchange of records 

because they have much less time to 

make up for mistakes made when school 

officials lack information needed for 

proper grade placement, course 

selection, and accrual of course credits 

required for high school graduation. As 

such, educators suggested that the 

migrant record-linking mechanism have 

a ‘‘special focus’’ on exchanging 

information needed for full and partial 

credit accrual for mobile secondary 

students. 

We also learned through consultations 

that gaining access to student records in 

a timely manner generally is more of a 

concern for students who make 

interstate, rather than intrastate, moves. 

This is because the new school district 

in another State is much less likely than 

a new school district in the same State 

to have ready access to information in 

the former district’s records, and thus 

the new district in another State is far 

less able to avoid critical delays in the 

transfer of necessary information. In 

many cases, however, the same problem 

exists when students make an intrastate 

move because district officials do not 

always have ready access to studentlevel data from another district within 

the State. In both cases, the problem is 

exacerbated for students who move 

during the summer, when many migrant 

education programs are conducted, 

because many of the schools that those 

students last attended, and from which 

student records would need to be 

gathered and transmitted, are closed. 

Through our continued consultations 

with migrant education stakeholders, 

we have also identified MDEs that 

would facilitate enrollment, grade and 

course placement, and accrual of 

secondary school course credits for 

migratory students. We published a 

notice of proposed information 

collection requests relating to the MDEs 

in the Federal Register on May 30, 2007 

(72 FR 29994), and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approved the collection of 66 MDEs on 

November 27, 2007, under OMB 

Approval Number 1810–0683. 

On August 20, 2010, we published in 

the Federal Register (75 FR 51449) a 

second notice of proposed information 

collection requests to add five new data 

elements to the set of MDEs collected 

and exchanged through MSIX. On 

January 30, 2011, OMB approved the 

revision and extended the expiration 

date of this information collection to 

January 31, 2014. After additional 

public comments, on March 30, 2011, 

OMB approved minor, non-substantive 

modifications to the collection, which 

now contains 71 MDEs. As discussed 

elsewhere in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section of this notice, we are 

publishing a third notice of proposed 

information collection requests for 

MSIX with these proposed regulations. 

MSIX is a system in which SEAs 

upload the required MDEs from their 

own State student record systems into a 

single data repository where 

information on each migrant student is 

maintained, organized, and compiled. 

MSIX uses a Web-based application that 

allows stakeholders with the 

appropriate security clearance to access 

the system via a Web browser. Using the 

required MDEs, MSIX generates a 

‘‘Consolidated Migrant Student 

Record.’’ It is used to promote proper 

enrollment, grade and course 

placement, and accrual of secondary 

school course credits for any identified 

migratory child by SEAs, their local 

operating agencies—that is, local 

educational agencies (LEAs) and other 

public or nonprofit private agencies that 

receive a subgrant of MEP funds—and 

those LEAs, sometimes known as ‘‘nonproject LEAs,’’ that do not receive 

subgrants of MEP funds. 

The Department started collecting 

data from participating SEAs on 

September 28, 2007, and MSIX is now 

fully operational. At present, State use 

of MSIX is voluntary. As of April 2013, 

46 of the 47 States participating in the 

MEP, as well as the contractor that 

operates the program through a bypass 

arrangement under section 1307 of the 

ESEA for eligible migratory children in 

the three States that do not participate 

in the MEP, have voluntarily executed 

both the MSIX Interconnection 

Agreement and MSIX Interconnection 

Security Agreement, which is a 

precondition for using MSIX under the 

Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 

100–235), the Information Technology 

Management Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–106), OMB Circular A–130 

Appendix III, and National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Special 

Publication 800–47. These States are 

now using MSIX to electronically 

transfer and receive migrant student 

data that apply to 99 percent of the 

Nation’s migrant children found eligible 

for the MEP. 

Under these proposed regulations, 

and consistent with sections 1304(b)(3) 

and 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA, as a 

condition of receiving a grant of MEP 

funds, an SEA would be required to 

collect, maintain, and submit to MSIX 

the MDEs approved by the Secretary 

within the timeframes established in 

final regulations. In addition, each SEA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

receiving MEP funds would be required 

to obtain the MDEs both from their MEP 

local operating agencies and from their 

non-project LEAs. 

We note finally that, in addition to its 

role in exchanging information among 

States and creating Consolidated 

Migrant Student Records for enrollment, 

placement, and credit accrual purposes, 

MSIX may also be used to produce 

national data on the migrant population. 

For further information, see the 

description of MSIX objectives at 

www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/

recordstransfer.html. In particular, the 

Department plans to use MSIX to 

provide stakeholders with census data 

and statistics on the national migrant 

population and to generate accurate 

child counts under section 1303(e)(1) of 

the ESEA. After all phases of MSIX data 

submission have been completed, we 

also plan to use statistical data from 

MSIX to help meet reporting 

requirements related to the national 

migrant child population. 

Summary of Proposed Changes 

These proposed regulations would 

help ensure that health and educational 

records of migratory children are 

available promptly for school 

enrollment, grade and course 

placement, and credit accrual purposes, 

and for producing national statistical 

data on the migrant population, by 

requiring each SEA that receives a grant 

of MEP funds to— 

• Collect, maintain, and submit 

current and updated MDEs for eligible 

migratory children to MSIX within 

established timeframes; 

• Ensure that all data submitted to 

MSIX are accurate and complete and 

that appropriate safeguards are in place 

to protect the integrity, security, and 

confidentiality of Consolidated Migrant 

Student Records in MSIX; 

• Establish procedures for using, and 

requiring each of its subgrantees to use, 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records 

in MSIX; and 

• Establish procedures for MSIX data 

correction by parents, guardians, and 

migratory children. 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

We discuss substantive issues under 

the sections of the proposed regulations 

to which they pertain. Generally, we do 

not address proposed regulatory 

changes that are technical or otherwise 

minor in effect. 

Section 200.81 Program definitions 

Statute: The statute does not define 

‘‘Consolidated Migrant Student 

Record,’’ ‘‘Migrant Student Information 

Exchange (MSIX),’’ ‘‘Minimum Data 

Elements (MDEs),’’ ‘‘MSIX 

Interconnection Agreement,’’ or ‘‘MSIX 

Interconnection Security Agreement.’’ 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations do not define ‘‘Consolidated 

Migrant Student Record,’’ ‘‘Migrant 

Student Information Exchange (MSIX),’’ 

‘‘Minimum Data Elements (MDEs),’’ 

‘‘MSIX Interconnection Agreement,’’ or 

‘‘MSIX Interconnection Security 

Agreement.’’ 

Proposed Regulations: The proposed 

regulations would define ‘‘Consolidated 

Migrant Student Record’’ as the MDEs 

for a migratory child that have been 

submitted by one or more SEAs and 

consolidated into a single, uniquely 

identified record available through 

MSIX. The proposed regulations would 

define ‘‘Migrant Student Information 

Exchange (MSIX)’’ as the nationwide 

system for linking and exchanging 

specified health and educational 

information for all migratory children in 

accordance with section 1308(b)(2) of 

the ESEA. The proposed regulations 

would define ‘‘Minimum Data Elements 

(MDEs)’’ to mean the health and 

educational information for migratory 

children that the Secretary requires each 

SEA that receives an MEP grant to 

collect, maintain, submit to MSIX, and 

use. The proposed regulations would 

define ‘‘MSIX Interconnection 

Agreement’’ to mean the agreement 

between the Department and an SEA 

that governs the interconnection 

between the State student records 

system and MSIX. The proposed 

regulations would define ‘‘MSIX 

Interconnection Security Agreement’’ to 

mean the agreement between the 

Department and an SEA that specifies 

the technical and security requirements 

for establishing, maintaining, and 

operating the interconnection between 

the State student records system and 

MSIX. 

Reasons: These definitions are needed 

to clarify the meanings of basic terms 

used in these proposed regulations for 

implementing the nationwide system for 

the linkage and exchange of migrant 

student records established under 

section 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

Section 200.84 Responsibilities for 

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the MEP 

and Using Evaluations To Improve 

Services to Migratory Children 

Statute: Section 1304 of the ESEA 

requires each grantee to evaluate the 

effectiveness of MEP projects using 

measurable program goals and 

outcomes. 

Current Regulations: Current § 200.84 

specifies the responsibilities of SEAs for 

evaluating the effectiveness of the MEP. 

Current § 200.85 identifies the 

responsibilities of SEAs and local 

operating agencies for improving 

services to migratory children. 

Proposed Regulations: The proposed 

regulations would revise the heading for 

§ 200.84 as set forth above and make 

technical changes to this proposed 

section. We would designate the current 

text of § 200.84 (concerning the 

responsibilities of SEAs for evaluating 

the effectiveness of the MEP) as 

§ 200.84(a) and redesignate the current 

text of § 200.85 (concerning the 

responsibilities of SEAs and local 

operating agencies for improving 

services to migratory children) as new 

§ 200.84(b). We would not make any 

substantive changes to the text of 

current § 200.84 and § 200.85; we would 

make technical changes to the text of 

current § 200.85 by deleting the 

introductory phrase and clarifying in 

proposed § 200.84(b) that the evaluation 

under paragraph (a) is carried out by the 

SEA. The redesignation of current 

§§ 200.84 and 200.85 is needed to create 

space for the proposed MSIX regulations 

in 34 CFR part 200, subpart C. 

Section 200.85 Responsibilities of 

SEAs for the Electronic Exchange 

Through MSIX of Specified Health and 

Educational Information of Migratory 

Children 

Statute: Section 1308(b)(2) of the 

ESEA requires the Secretary, in 

consultation with the States, to ensure 

the linkage of migrant student records 

systems for the purpose of States 

exchanging health and educational 

information about all migratory students 

and to determine the MDEs that each 

State receiving MEP funds shall collect 

and maintain for this purpose. 

Current Regulations: Current § 200.85 

clarifies the statutory responsibilities of 

an SEA receiving MEP funds to use 

evaluation results to improve services 

provided to migratory children. 

Proposed Regulations: As described in 

our discussion of proposed § 200.84, we 

would move the text of current § 200.85 

(‘‘Responsibilities of SEAs and 

operating agencies for improving 

services to migratory children’’) to new 

§ 200.84(b). We would replace current 

§ 200.85 with a new § 200.85, 

‘‘Responsibilities of SEAs for the 

electronic exchange through MSIX of 

specified health and educational 

information of migratory children,’’ and 

the new regulations would address the 

following: 

MSIX State record system and data 

exchange requirements. Proposed 

§ 200.85(a) provides that as a condition 

of receiving a grant of MEP funds, an 

SEA would be required to collect, 

maintain, and submit to MSIX the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79225 

MDEs, and otherwise exchange and use 

information on, migratory children in 

accordance with all of the data 

submission and other requirements in 

proposed § 200.85. Failure of an SEA to 

do so would constitute a failure under 

section 454 of the General Education 

Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, to 

comply substantially with a requirement 

of law applicable to the funds made 

available under the MEP. 

Reasons: We recognize that at this 

time the various State studentinformation systems do not uniformly 

contain all the information that the 

Department has determined is needed to 

support the purposes and goals of MSIX. 

Likewise, although MSIX has been 

operational since 2007 and nearly all 

States currently participate, SEAs still 

do not uniformly submit and use MSIX 

data in a manner that would most 

benefit migratory children. Proposed 

§ 200.85(a) would ensure that SEAs 

participate fully in MSIX so that it can 

fulfill its principal statutory purpose— 

to enable school personnel throughout 

the Nation to quickly access data 

needed to make proper educational 

decisions about any migratory child 

who enrolls in school. It would also 

clarify that the Secretary may take 

appropriate enforcement action if an 

SEA fails to comply with any of these 

proposed requirements. 

We note that under the proposed 

regulations, a State would not be 

required to maintain a separate migrant 

student records system and could use 

any statewide or local system that 

contains the necessary information on 

migratory children. While the proposed 

regulations would require an SEA to 

collect, maintain, and submit to MSIX 

the MDEs required by the Secretary and 

use Consolidated Migrant Student 

Records, they would not otherwise 

require any change in an SEA’s 

approach to student data systems. 

MSIX data submission requirements. 

Proposed § 200.85(b) sets forth 

requirements for the content and timing 

of an SEA’s start-up and subsequent 

data submissions to MSIX. 

General. Under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(1), an SEA that receives a 

grant of MEP funds would be required 

to submit to MSIX, within the timelines 

for start-up and subsequent data 

submissions contained in proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(2) and (b)(3), the MDEs 

applicable to a migratory child’s age and 

grade level that the Secretary has 

determined are needed to implement 

MSIX. We note that these proposed data 

submission requirements would apply 

to any migratory child whom the SEA 

considered eligible for MEP services in 

accordance with § 200.89(c). This would 

include not only pre-school and K–12 

migratory children enrolled in public 

schools, but also those who are homeschooled or enrolled in non-public 

schools because, as they migrate, these 

home-schooled or non-public school 

children may move into and out of 

public schools, where their private 

school or home-school records would be 

needed for enrollment and placement 

purposes. The proposed data 

submission requirements would apply 

also to secondary school-aged children 

who are not enrolled in school at all, 

known as out-of-school youth or ‘‘OSY,’’ 

whom the SEA had determined to be 

eligible for MEP services. Applying 

these proposed requirements to all of 

these migratory children will ensure 

that demographic, educational, health, 

and other information will be available 

promptly upon initial or subsequent 

school enrollments. 

Reasons: Proposed § 200.85(b)(1) 

would establish a requirement that 

SEAs must submit electronically to 

MSIX those MDEs that the Secretary 

designates. For the convenience of the 

reader, we have appended to this notice 

a list of the 71 MDEs currently collected 

by the Secretary under OMB Control 

Nos. 1875–0240, 1810–0662, and 1810– 

0683, as well as one new MDE 

identified in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section of this notice. As discussed 

in the Background and Paperwork 

Reduction Act sections of this notice, 

we have consulted extensively with 

MEP stakeholders and believe that these 

MDEs reflect the minimal information 

needed to ensure the proper enrollment, 

grade and course placement, and 

accrual of secondary course credits 

(including credit for any courses taken 

for college credit) for migratory 

children. The Secretary would continue 

to consult with MEP stakeholders in 

connection with any future changes to 

the MDEs collected for submission to 

MSIX. 

While the majority of MDEs, such as 

name, date of birth, qualifying arrival 

date, etc., apply to all migratory 

children, some of the required MDEs 

apply only after a child reaches a certain 

age or grade level. For example, 

depending on their grade level, primary 

and middle school children may not 

have certain assessments, nor will the 

course title and type of information that 

is required for secondary school 

students apply to them. Because State 

policies vary regarding the ages and 

grade levels at which these 

requirements come into play, we are not 

proposing to regulate precisely which 

MDEs an SEA must submit to MSIX for 

a migratory child. Rather, under the 

proposed regulations, SEAs would need 

to determine which MDEs are 

applicable to the child’s age and grade 

level in accordance with State policy 

and submit those MDEs to MSIX as 

required under this section. The 

Department would issue non-regulatory 

guidance on this issue as needed. 

Start-up data submissions. Under 

proposed § 200.85(b)(2), no later than 90 

calendar days after the effective date of 

the final regulations, an SEA would be 

required to collect and submit to MSIX 

each of the MDEs required by the 

Secretary, as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, applicable to the 

child’s age and grade level. An SEA 

would do so for every migratory child 

whom the SEA considered eligible for 

the MEP under § 200.89(c) within one 

year preceding the effective date of the 

final regulations. An SEA would have to 

collect and submit MDEs for a migratory 

child whether or not the child has a 

current Certificate of Eligibility under 

§ 200.89(c) at the time the SEA makes its 

start-up data submission. 

Reasons: Proposed § 200.85(b)(2) 

would ensure that by a specified date 

MSIX is fully populated with MDEs for 

migratory children whom SEAs have 

already determined are eligible for the 

MEP. The section would specify the 

group of migratory children covered 

under an SEA’s start-up data submission 

as well as the content and timeframe of 

those submissions. We believe that 90 

days is a reasonable period of time for 

SEAs to locate and submit the required 

MDEs to MSIX given that the proposed 

requirement applies only to those 

children considered eligible for the MEP 

within the preceding year, and that 

many SEAs would have already 

submitted some or all of the required 

MDEs by the time the final regulations 

would take effect. With regard to the 

administrative effort required for this 

proposed requirement, we note that the 

SEA would not have to ascertain 

whether the child is still resident in the 

State or otherwise eligible for the 

program at the time of this data 

submission. 

As noted in the Background section of 

this notice, MSIX has been operational 

since 2007 and, accordingly, many SEAs 

have already submitted most of the 

MDEs approved under the Department’s 

information collection (OMB Approval 

Number 1810–0683) for their States’ 

migratory children. For purposes of the 

start-up data submissions required 

under these proposed regulations, SEAs 

would not be required to resubmit to 

MSIX any MDEs they have already 

submitted. However, a small number of 

SEAs have not yet submitted any data 

to MSIX, and those that have done so 

may not have submitted all of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

required data, particularly the 

additional MDEs added in 2011. (Of 

course, none of the SEAs has submitted 

the new MDE identified in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section and 

appendix of this notice.). 

We note also that the Department 

initially collected MDEs in three phases, 

covering demographic data collected in 

Certificates of Eligibility, assessments, 

and course history for secondary 

students. However, MSIX has since 

eliminated the phased submission of 

MDEs, and there is no provision for 

phased submission of MDEs under the 

start-up or subsequent data submissions 

required under these proposed 

regulations. 

This means, for example, that SEAs 

would be required to collect and submit 

to MSIX in their start-up submissions 

the assessment and course history data 

(applicable to the child’s age and grade 

level) located in the State for children 

for whom the SEA may have previously 

submitted only demographic data. We 

propose to limit the start-up submission 

requirement to data for children 

considered eligible within the year 

preceding the effective date of the final 

regulations because of the added burden 

some SEAs would incur if they had to 

go back beyond one year in order to 

locate and collect assessment and 

course history data for these children 

from LEAs and non-migrant databases 

in the State. 

Subsequent data submissions. 

Newly documented migratory 

children. For every migratory child for 

whom an SEA documents eligibility for 

the MEP on or after the effective date of 

these regulations, proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(A) would require the 

SEA to collect and submit to MSIX the 

MDEs required under paragraph (b)(1) 

within ten working days of 

documenting the child’s eligibility for 

the MEP under § 200.89(c). This 

requirement would apply when an SEA 

determines that a migratory child has 

made a qualifying move and documents 

the child’s eligibility on a Certificate of 

Eligibility; it would not apply when an 

SEA subsequently verifies that a 

previously identified migratory child is 

still a resident in the State. Unless a 

child is secondary school-aged, an SEA 

would not be required under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(A) to collect and submit 

MDEs in existence before the SEA’s 

documentation of the child’s eligibility 

for the MEP. 

If the newly documented migratory 

child is secondary school-aged (whether 

or not the child is currently enrolled in 

school), proposed § 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B) 

would require an SEA to collect and 

submit to MSIX MDEs from the most 

recent secondary school in that State 

attended previously by the child, if any, 

and also to notify MSIX within 30 

calendar days if one of its local 

operating agencies obtains records from 

a secondary school attended previously 

by the student in another State. 

End of term submissions. Proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(ii) provides that within 30 

calendar days of the end of the fall, 

spring, summer, and intersession terms, 

an SEA must collect and submit to 

MSIX all updates to MDEs and all newly 

available MDEs for migratory children 

who were eligible for the MEP during 

the term and for whom the SEA 

previously submitted data to MSIX. (If 

the SEA has not previously submitted 

data to MSIX for a particular migratory 

child to be included in an end of term 

submission, then the submission would 

fall under the timeframes and other 

specific requirements of paragraph 

(b)(2)(start-up data submissions) or 

(b)(3)(i) (newly documented migratory 

children).) Note that this proposed end 

of term submission requirement would 

apply even if the migratory child is no 

longer enrolled in school at the end of 

the term so long as the child was 

eligible for the MEP sometime during 

the term. 

In addition, when a migratory child’s 

MEP eligibility expires before the end of 

a school year, the proposed regulations 

would require an SEA to submit to 

MSIX all MDE updates and newly 

available MDEs for the child through the 

end of the school year in which the 

child is enrolled. Likewise, an SEA 

would be required to submit all MDE 

updates and newly available MDEs for 

any child who continues to receive 

MEP-funded services under section 

1304(e) of the ESEA (continuation of 

services) after expiration of the child’s 

eligibility for the MEP. 

Change of residence submissions. 

Proposed § 200.85(b)(3)(iii) would 

require that within four working days of 

the date that MSIX notifies an SEA that 

a migratory child has changed residence 

to a new school district within the State 

or is newly documented as a migratory 

child in another State, the SEA must 

submit to MSIX all MDE updates and all 

MDEs that have become newly available 

to the SEA or one of its local operating 

agencies since the SEA’s last data 

submission to MSIX for the child. If the 

MDEs are not available to the SEA or 

local operating agency when the SEA 

receives a change of residence notice 

from MSIX, the SEA would need to 

submit the MDEs to MSIX within four 

working days of the date that the SEA 

or its local operating agency has the 

MDE. 

Proposed § 200.85(b)(3) would require 

an SEA to comply with specified 

timelines for subsequent data 

submissions throughout the entire 

calendar year whether or not local 

operating agencies or LEAs in the State 

are closed for summer or intersession 

periods. 

Reasons: Proposed § 200.85(b)(3) is 

needed to establish reasonable and 

definite timeframes within which SEAs 

must submit MDEs to MSIX after their 

start-up data submissions. MSIX will 

transmit a migratory child’s 

Consolidated Migrant Student Record 

immediately upon request of a local 

operating agency or non-project LEA. 

However, MSIX can meet its intended 

purpose of facilitating proper 

enrollment, grade and course 

placement, and credit accrual for 

migratory children only if the 

information in MSIX is complete, 

accurate, and current. This means that 

SEAs must submit new, updated, and 

newly available MDEs, including certain 

prior secondary school records, for 

migratory children within these 

timeframes. 

We note, however, that these 

proposed timeframes represent the 

maximum amount of time that an SEA 

may take to submit MDEs to MSIX, not 

an ideal practice. For example, most 

States that have large migrant 

populations currently upload data to 

MSIX nightly; others have organized 

their systems to update MSIX whenever 

the value for an MDE has changed. We 

encourage SEAs to follow these 

practices and submit available data as 

promptly as possible so that school 

officials will have access to the most upto-date information for enrolling, 

placing, and accruing credits for 

migratory children. 

Newly documented migratory 

children. Section 200.89(c)(1) of the 

current regulations requires an SEA and 

its local operating agencies to use the 

Certificate of Eligibility form established 

by the Secretary to document the State’s 

determination of the eligibility of 

migratory children for the MEP. A 

consensus was reached during the 

Department’s MSIX consultations with 

SEAs and other MEP stakeholders that 

an SEA could be expected to submit a 

migratory child’s MDEs to MSIX within 

ten working days of the date that the 

SEA documents under § 200.89(c)(1) 

that the child is eligible for the program. 

We believe that this timeframe 

appropriately balances the need for 

local operating agencies and non-project 

LEAs to have access to data as quickly 

as possible for enrollment, grade and 

course placement, and credit accrual 

purposes with fiscal and administrative 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79227 

constraints faced by SEAs and local 

operating agencies that would have to 

respond to requests for such data. 

In particular, experience suggests that 

although migratory children could move 

at any time, newly documented 

migratory children are unlikely to move 

again within ten working days. We 

recognize that the ten working-day 

starting point will vary depending on an 

SEA’s process for approving and 

accepting a child’s Certificate of 

Eligibility. Regardless of the process an 

SEA uses to make this determination, 

however, we agree with MEP 

stakeholders that ten working days from 

the date that an SEA documents a 

child’s eligibility for the MEP should 

allow sufficient time for the SEA to 

gather and submit the necessary MDEs 

to MSIX. We take this position because, 

except for secondary school-aged 

individuals, proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(A) would require an 

SEA to collect and submit to MSIX only 

MDEs that exist at the time the SEA 

documents the child’s eligibility for the 

MEP. 

We agree with the MEP stakeholders 

who have advised us consistently over 

the years that it is secondary schoolaged students who are most adversely 

affected when information about their 

prior coursework and assessments is not 

available promptly after they migrate to 

a new area. In order to address this 

problem, we propose to require an SEA 

to collect and submit to MSIX those 

MDEs that were gathered prior to 

documentation of MEP eligibility for 

migratory children who previously 

attended secondary school in the same 

State. 

In these cases, proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B) would require an 

SEA to collect and submit MDEs from 

the most recent secondary school in that 

State attended previously by the newly 

documented migratory child, if any. We 

are proposing this requirement so that 

when the migratory child makes a 

qualifying move, the new State or 

school district will have more complete 

data on the student’s high school record 

for enrollment, course placement, and 

credit accrual purposes than it would 

have if the SEA submitted only data that 

came into existence in the State after the 

date it documented the child as eligible 

for the MEP. 

We specifically invite public 

comment on our expectation that MDEs 

from the student’s most recent 

secondary school in the State would 

contain MDEs from any secondary 

school in the same State in which the 

student previously enrolled. 

For a migratory child who was not 

previously documented as eligible for 

the MEP in that State, the proposed 

regulations do not require an SEA to 

submit MDEs for the period prior to the 

new documentation. As such, a State 

that newly documents the eligibility of 

a child who previously attended 

secondary school in another State, but 

who was never identified as eligible for 

the MEP in that other State, would not 

be able to obtain the child’s previous 

secondary school records from MSIX. 

In these circumstances, we are 

proposing in § 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(2) to 

require an SEA (in State A) to notify 

MSIX within 30 calendar days if one of 

its local operating agencies obtains 

secondary school records from another 

State (State B) so that when the 

migratory child moves again, the new 

district can use MSIX to quickly locate 

the child’s prior coursework and other 

secondary school records. We are not 

proposing to require the SEA of State B 

to transfer a student’s previous 

secondary school records to State A 

because of the added administrative 

burden that would be associated with 

students who were never identified as 

migratory in State B, particularly as we 

understand that many of these transfers 

occur in summer or intercession months 

when school districts are closed. We 

also believe that, provided a student 

remains enrolled for an adequate period, 

the LEA in State A where a student 

transfers will eventually incorporate any 

prior secondary school course 

placements from State B into the 

student’s records in State A, and that 

the SEA in State A will submit those 

MDEs to MSIX under the end of term 

submissions, described below. 

We specifically ask for public 

comment as to whether these proposed 

regulations address adequately the 

problem of obtaining course placement 

records of secondary school-aged 

migratory children in a timely manner 

without overly burdening MEP 

participants. 

End of term submissions. MEP 

stakeholders also generally agreed that, 

for children already identified in MSIX, 

30 calendar days from the end of a 

school term (including summer and 

intersession terms) was a reasonable 

timeframe for an SEA to update a child’s 

MSIX record and provide any newly 

available MDEs, such as State 

assessment data. Here again, we realize 

that a child could move at any time 

before or after the end of the term. 

However, the proposed regulations in 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(iii) would call for a much 

faster, four-working day timeframe for 

submitting MDEs when MSIX notifies 

an SEA that a child has been identified 

in another location that seeks 

information from MSIX. As such, we 

believe that the 30-day timeframe for 

end of term submissions in proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(ii) reflects an appropriate 

balance between the need for MSIX to 

be able to provide current and accurate 

records and the need for SEAs, local 

operating agencies, and non-project 

LEAs to manage their staff-time and 

workloads. 

By proposing to require SEAs to 

update and provide newly available 

MDEs to MSIX at the end of each term 

even when a migratory child’s MEP 

eligibility expires before the term or 

school year has ended, the proposed 

regulations would help ensure that 

MSIX has available the most complete 

and up-to-date information should the 

child again become eligible for the MEP 

based on a subsequent move to a new 

location. Without these requirements, 

there would be a gap in MSIX data for 

the period between expiration of the 

child’s eligibility and the submission of 

updated data to MSIX if the child is 

documented as eligible again in a new 

location. We believe that this approach 

is more efficient than relying solely on 

the SEA’s responsibility under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(iii) to submit MDEs 

within four working days of learning 

from MSIX that the child has been 

identified as migratory in another 

location. For similar reasons, the 

proposed regulations would require an 

SEA to update MDEs during any period 

of time in which a migratory child 

whose eligibility has expired continues 

to receive MEP services under section 

1304(e) of the ESEA. 

Change of residence submissions. 

Once an SEA has documented the MEP 

eligibility of a migratory child and 

submitted the MDEs to MSIX, MSIX 

thereafter may notify the SEA when that 

child has been newly documented as 

eligible for the MEP in another State or 

has changed residence to a new local 

operating agency within the same State. 

In these circumstances, proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(iii)(A) would require the 

SEA to submit to MSIX, within four 

working days of receipt of a change of 

residence notification from MSIX, 

updated MDEs that have become 

available to the SEA or its local 

operating agencies since the SEA’s last 

submission of MDEs for the child. While 

we recognize that this is a very short 

timeframe, MEP and school personnel 

in the new State or district need critical 

information on the most mobile 

migratory children as soon as possible 

to allow them to make appropriate 

decisions regarding enrollment, grade 

and course placement, and accrual of 

secondary course credits. 

We note that an SEA would be 

required under proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79228 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(ii) to submit updated and 

newly available MDEs to MSIX within 

30 days of the end of the most recent 

school term in which the child was 

enrolled. While this provision would 

help keep MSIX up to date for migratory 

children who have not yet moved again, 

it would not meet the needs of children 

who have already migrated to a new 

school district, where school officials 

and staff need records from the former 

school district as quickly as possible. 

Proposed § 200.85(b)(3)(iii)(B) 

recognizes that an SEA or local 

operating agency may not be able to 

submit new or updated MDEs for a child 

at the time the SEA receives a change of 

residence notification from MSIX 

because the information is not yet 

available. For example, a State or local 

operating agency may not have a child’s 

scores for State reading and 

mathematics assessments for some time 

after the child has already migrated to 

a new State or school district. In these 

cases, the proposed regulation would 

require an SEA to submit the new or 

updated MDEs to MSIX within four 

working days of the date that the SEA 

or one of its local operating agencies 

obtains the MDEs. By this we mean that 

the information has been processed by 

the local school district, other local 

operating agency, or other responsible 

party, such as a contractor for the SEA, 

and could be collected by the SEA. 

Without such a provision, SEAs would 

be under no obligation to submit to 

MSIX those MDEs that an SEA or one 

of its local operating agencies obtains 

after the standard, four-day submission 

period has lapsed. 

Under proposed § 200.85(b)(3), the 

fact that a school district or other local 

operating agency is closed for the 

summer (or other vacation period) 

would not relieve an SEA of its 

obligation to collect and submit MDEs 

to MSIX that are available to one of its 

local operating agencies. Allowing an 

SEA to defer submission of MDEs until 

after the child’s district or other local 

operating agency reopens after a 

vacation period would defeat the 

purpose of the proposed subsequent 

data submission requirements. We note 

that consistent with sections 1304(b)(3) 

and 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA, an SEA’s 

costs of making arrangements with its 

local operating agencies and non-project 

districts to secure needed MDE 

information, including under the 

subsequent data submission 

requirements in proposed § 200.85(b)(3), 

would be allowable costs of the MEP. 

Use of Consolidated Migrant Student 

Records. Proposed § 200.85(c)(1) would 

require SEAs to use, and to require each 

of their local operating agencies to use, 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records 

to help ensure proper participation in 

the MEP, school enrollment, grade and 

course placement, and accrual of high 

school credits, for all migratory children 

who have changed residence to a new 

school district within the State or in 

another State. Under proposed 

§ 200.85(c)(2), SEAs also would be 

required to encourage non-project LEAs 

to use Consolidated Migrant Student 

Records for these same purposes. 

Proposed § 200.85(c)(3) would require 

SEAs to establish procedures, develop 

and disseminate guidance, and provide 

training to SEA, local operating agency, 

and non-project LEA personnel who 

have been designated by the SEA as 

authorized MSIX users under proposed 

§ 200.85(f)(2) to ensure that 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records 

are used for the purposes provided in 

proposed § 200.85(c)(1). 

Reasons: Migratory children will 

benefit from the expedited availability 

of records in MSIX only if school 

registrars, counselors, MEP specialists, 

and other local and State officials and 

staff use the system for its intended 

purposes—ensuring that migratory 

students receive proper enrollment, 

grade and course placement, and 

accrual of high school credits. Because 

staff may be inclined to opt for the 

familiarity of existing systems and 

methods that do not include or provide 

for a nationwide data exchange, 

proposed § 200.85(c)(1) is needed to 

ensure that SEAs and local operating 

agencies actually use Consolidated 

Migrant Student Records from MSIX, 

and that MSIX therefore fulfills its 

intended purposes. 

No similar requirement is proposed 

for non-project LEAs because they do 

not receive MEP funds. However, 

proposed § 200.85(c)(2) and (c)(3) would 

ensure that these LEAs are familiar with 

the added benefits for migratory 

children of using a student’s 

Consolidated Migrant Student Record. 

Proposed § 200.85(c)(3) is needed also to 

ensure that SEAs properly train 

authorized users in the appropriate use 

of the MSIX online system as well as the 

information contained in the 

Consolidated Migrant Student Record. 

MSIX data quality. Proposed 

§ 200.85(d)(1) would require SEAs to 

use reasonable and appropriate methods 

to ensure that all data submitted to 

MSIX are accurate and complete, and to 

require each of their local operating 

agencies to do the same. 

Proposed § 200.85(d)(2) would require 

SEAs to respond promptly, and ensure 

that each of their local operating 

agencies responds promptly, to any 

request by the Department for 

information needed to meet the 

Department’s responsibility for the 

accuracy and completeness of MSIX 

data under the Privacy Act of 1974, as 

amended (Privacy Act). 

Reasons: The data in MSIX will help 

school officials make correct decisions 

about enrollment, grade and course 

placement, and accrual of high school 

credits for migratory children only if 

SEAs take reasonable steps to ensure 

that records of migratory children 

submitted to MSIX are accurate and 

complete. If the information that SEAs 

submit to MSIX is not accurate and 

complete, then Consolidated Migrant 

Student Records from MSIX cannot and 

will not be used as intended under 

section 1308(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

(Proposed regulations requiring SEAs 

also to respond to requests to correct 

data in MSIX are discussed later in this 

notice in connection with proposed 

§ 200.85(e).) 

In addition, MSIX is a ‘‘system of 

records’’ under the Privacy Act. See the 

system of records notice published in 

the Federal Register at 72 FR 68572, 

68576 (Dec. 5, 2007). The MSIX is 

implemented through a Department 

contract, and therefore the Department 

and its contractor are responsible for 

complying with applicable Privacy Act 

requirements in the maintenance and 

operation of MSIX. In particular, 5 

U.S.C. 552a(e)(6) requires the 

Department and its contractor to make 

reasonable efforts to assure that MSIX 

records are accurate, complete, timely, 

and relevant. 

These proposed regulations are 

needed to help the Department meet its 

responsibility under this provision of 

the Privacy Act. The requirement that 

MSIX records be accurate and complete 

is addressed by proposed § 200.85(d) 

(along with proposed § 200.85(e), which 

addresses requests to correct the 

records); the timeliness requirement is 

addressed in proposed § 200.85(b); and 

the relevance requirement is addressed 

through the MDEs required by the 

Secretary. Proposed § 200.85(d) helps to 

ensure that migrant students have 

accurate and complete records; in 

particular, proposed § 200.85(d)(2) 

would ensure that SEAs and local 

operating agencies help the Department 

carry out its responsibility to engage in 

reasonable efforts to maintain accurate 

and complete records in MSIX, and to 

respond to any civil action that might be 

brought under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 

552a(g)(1)(C) or (D)) alleging failure to 

maintain accurate and complete records 

in MSIX. 

Finally, as noted above in the 

Background section of this notice, the 

Department plans to use MSIX to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79229 

generate MEP child counts for State 

funding purposes and to meet reporting 

requirements related to the national 

migrant child population. Proposed 

§ 200.85(d) is thus also needed to ensure 

that the Department has the most 

accurate, complete, and timely data that 

is reasonably possible for these 

purposes. 

Procedures for MSIX data correction 

by parents, guardians, and migratory 

children. Proposed § 200.85(e) would 

require each SEA that receives a grant 

of MEP funds to establish and 

implement written procedures to allow 

a parent or guardian of a migratory 

child, or a migratory child, to ask an 

SEA to correct or determine the 

correctness of MSIX data. 

These written procedures would need 

to meet the following minimum 

regulatory requirements. Under 

proposed § 200.85(e)(1)(i), within 30 

calendar days of receipt of a data 

correction request from a parent, 

guardian, or migratory child an SEA 

would need to (A) send a written or 

electronic acknowledgement to the 

requester; (B) investigate the request; (C) 

decide whether to revise the data as 

requested; and (D) send the requester a 

written or electronic notice of the SEA’s 

decision. This process would occur 

outside of MSIX. 

Under proposed § 200.85(e)(1)(ii), an 

SEA would have to submit any revised 

data to MSIX within four working days 

of its decision to revise the data; an SEA 

would not need to notify MSIX if it 

decided not to revise data as requested. 

Under proposed § 200.85(e)(1)(iii), if a 

parent, guardian, or migratory child asks 

an SEA to correct or determine the 

correctness of data that was submitted 

to MSIX by another SEA, the SEA 

would be required to send the data 

correction request to the SEA that had 

submitted the data to MSIX within four 

working days of its receipt. This process 

also would occur outside of MSIX. An 

SEA that receives an MSIX data 

correction request from another SEA 

under this provision would need to 

respond as if it had received the request 

directly from the parent, guardian, or 

migratory child. 

Under proposed § 200.85(e)(2), an 

SEA would need to respond, and ensure 

that its local operating agencies 

respond, within ten working days to a 

request by the SEA of another State for 

information needed by that SEA to 

respond to a data correction request by 

a parent, guardian, or migratory child 

under proposed § 200.85(e)(1). This 

process, too, would occur outside of 

MSIX. (Note that procedures for SEAs to 

respond to requests by MSIX itself to 

resolve data matching and other data 

integrity issues internal to MSIX are 

discussed in connection with proposed 

§ 200.85(f)(1).) 

Proposed § 200.85(e)(3) would require 

an SEA to respond within ten working 

days to a request from the Department 

for information it needs to respond to an 

individual’s request to correct or amend 

a Consolidated Migrant Student Record 

under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552a(d)(2), and 34 CFR 5b.7. This 

process would occur outside of MSIX as 

well. 

Reasons: MSIX is a system of records 

under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. As 

such, subject individuals have a right 

under paragraph (d)(2) of the statute and 

Department regulations codified at 34 

CFR § 5b.7(a) to ask the responsible 

Department official to correct or amend 

a Consolidated Migrant Student Record 

that the individual believes is not 

accurate, timely, complete, or relevant 

or necessary to accomplish a 

Department function. Our purpose for 

proposing § 200.85(e) is not to duplicate 

or supplant these rights under the 

Privacy Act but to provide a more 

limited and accessible procedure for 

individuals who want only to correct an 

inaccurate record and who would be 

more likely to do so if given an 

opportunity at the State or local level. 

These proposed regulations, and 

§ 200.85(e)(3) in particular, are also 

needed because the Department cannot 

respond to a request to correct or amend 

an MSIX record under the Privacy Act 

without the intervention of SEAs 

because MSIX contains only records 

submitted by the SEAs. 

Parents and guardians of migratory 

children and those children themselves 

often have the most accurate 

information about a migratory child and 

his or her family, such as whether a 

child attended a particular school or 

already completed a specific course, and 

they have a strong interest in ensuring 

that MSIX data are accurate. These 

proposed regulations advance that 

interest by requiring SEAs to develop 

and implement written procedures, 

within established timeframes, for (1) 

receiving and responding to requests by 

these individuals to correct or 

determine the correctness of records 

that have been or would be submitted to 

MSIX, and (2) sending any revised and 

corrected data to MSIX. 

Moreover, the proposed regulations 

would facilitate MSIX data correction by 

allowing SEAs to establish their own 

procedures in the most efficient and 

effective possible manner (within 

specified timeframes). We anticipate, for 

example, that most SEAs would require 

parents, guardians, and migratory 

children to submit their MSIX data 

correction requests to a local operating 

agency and would delegate to these 

agencies most of the SEA’s 

responsibilities under these proposed 

regulations for investigating requests 

and communicating with requesters, 

other SEAs and local operating agencies, 

and the Department. The proposed 

requirement in § 200.85(e)(1)(iii) would 

also provide parents, guardians, and 

migratory children with a single, local 

point where they could request MSIX 

data correction, even when the 

questionable data had been submitted to 

MSIX by the SEA of another State. 

We believe that the proposed 

timeframes for these MSIX data 

correction procedures will help to 

ensure that incorrect data are removed 

from MSIX as quickly as possible, while 

providing sufficient time for SEAs to 

seek further information and resolve any 

conflicts. We note that, while an SEA 

would have 30 calendar days overall to 

respond to an individual’s request and 

four working days from the date of its 

decision to submit any revised data to 

MSIX, under § 200.85(e)(2) we propose 

that an SEA or local operating agency 

would have nearly one-half of that time 

(i.e., ten working days) to provide 

information that an SEA in another 

State needs to respond to a request it 

has received from a parent, guardian, or 

migratory child to correct MSIX 

information. Similarly, in § 200.85(e)(3) 

we propose that an SEA or local 

operating agency would have the same 

ten working-day time period in which to 

respond to a request from the 

Department for information the 

Department needs to respond to a 

request to correct or amend records 

under the Privacy Act. 

We specifically seek public comment 

on whether these are reasonable 

timeframes for SEAs and local operating 

agencies to complete their work and 

respond to the requester. 

MSIX data protection. Under 

proposed § 200.85(f)(1), each SEA that 

receives a grant of MEP funds would 

enter into and carry out its 

responsibilities under an MSIX 

Interconnection Agreement, an MSIX 

Interconnection Security Agreement, 

and other information technology (IT) 

agreements required by the Secretary in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

requirements. 

SEAs would be required under 

proposed § 200.85(f)(2) to establish and 

implement written procedures to protect 

the integrity, security, and 

confidentiality of Consolidated Migrant 

Student Records, whether in electronic 

or print format, through appropriate 

administrative, technical, and physical 

safeguards established in accordance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79230 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

with the MSIX Interconnection 

Agreement and MSIX Interconnection 

Security Agreement. An SEA’s written 

procedures would have to include, at a 

minimum, reasonable methods to 

ensure that (i) the SEA permits access to 

MSIX only by authorized users at the 

SEA, its local operating agencies, and 

LEAs in the State that are not MEP local 

operating agencies but where a 

migratory child has enrolled; and (ii) the 

SEA’s authorized users obtain access to 

and use MSIX records only for 

authorized purposes as described in 

proposed § 200.85(c)(1). 

Under proposed § 200.85(f)(3), before 

providing authorized users with access 

to MSIX an SEA would require that they 

complete the User Application Form 

approved by the Secretary, which is 

available currently at https://

msix.ed.gov. An SEA would also be 

permitted to develop its own 

documentation for approving user 

access to MSIX provided that it contains 

the same information as the User 

Application Form approved by the 

Secretary. Proposed § 200.85(f)(4) would 

require SEAs to retain the 

documentation required for approving 

user access to MSIX for three years after 

the SEA terminates the user’s access. 

Reasons: The proposed regulations 

are needed to ensure that, in connecting 

to MSIX and allowing individuals to 

obtain access to the electronic student 

records system, SEAs protect the 

integrity, security, and confidentiality of 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records 

through appropriate administrative, 

technical, and physical safeguards. 

Currently, this is accomplished 

through specific provisions in the MSIX 

Interconnection Agreement and MSIX 

Interconnection Security Agreement 

that SEAs, in accordance with various 

Federal requirements, must enter into 

before they may participate in MSIX. In 

particular, OMB Circular A–130 

Appendix III and National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Special 

Publication 800–47, which implement 

requirements of the Computer Security 

Act of 1987 and the Information 

Technology Management Reform Act of 

1996, require Federal agencies to obtain 

written management authorization 

before connecting their IT systems to 

other systems based on an acceptable 

level of risk. Similarly, the MSIX 

Interconnection Agreement and MSIX 

Interconnection Security Agreement are 

part of the means by which the 

Department meets its responsibilities 

under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552a(e)(10), for establishing appropriate 

safeguards to ensure the security and 

confidentiality of records, and to protect 

against any anticipated threats or 

hazards to their security or integrity that 

could result in substantial harm, 

embarrassment, inconvenience, or 

unfairness to any individual on whom 

information is maintained in MSIX. As 

such, proposed § 200.85(f) is needed to 

help the Department meet its IT data 

security responsibilities under the 

Privacy Act. 

The proposed regulations would help 

to ensure that SEAs comply with all 

Federal information security 

requirements applicable to MSIX by 

requiring that they execute and 

implement satisfactory IT agreements 

with the Department as a condition of 

receiving a grant of MEP funds and of 

connecting to and accessing the MSIX 

system. We note that the Department’s 

MSIX IT agreements with participating 

States also include provisions related to 

various internal processing 

requirements applicable to SEAs that 

help ensure the integrity of 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records. 

For example, there are MSIX work rules 

that require SEAs to resolve data match 

and other data discrepancy issues 

within specified timeframes. An SEA’s 

failure to comply with these internal 

MSIX work rules is a breach of its IT 

agreements and would constitute a 

violation of proposed § 200.85(f)(1). 

Because Consolidated Migrant 

Student Records contain personally 

identifiable information (PII) on all 

migratory children, the proposed 

regulations are needed to ensure that 

SEAs limit access to authorized users 

and for authorized purposes. However, 

while the number of users in each SEA, 

local operating agency, or non-project 

LEA would likely be limited, we 

anticipate that, consistent with their 

MSIX data protection procedures, SEAs 

will promote the maximum use of 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records 

at State and local levels in order to meet 

the needs of migratory children who 

have moved to a new LEA or State. 

In terms of the data protection 

procedures that SEAs would be required 

to implement under these proposed 

regulations, we note that the restrictions 

on redisclosure of PII from education 

records in the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 

U.S.C. 1232g(b)(3) and 34 CFR part 

99.35(c)(2), do not apply to FERPAprotected PII that is disclosed to and by 

MSIX because Federal law (section 

1308(b)(2) of the ESEA) specifically 

authorizes and requires the redisclosure 

of MDEs to the Department (i.e., FERPAprotected PII). However, FERPA’s 

restrictions on redisclosure still apply to 

PII from education records that LEAs 

and SEAs obtain from MSIX and 

subsequently maintain in their own data 

systems. 

In order to ensure that MSIX users are 

aware of the Department’s rules of 

behavior governing the use of MSIX and 

that the Department can effectively 

monitor use of MSIX, as well as 

promptly respond to any actual or 

potential security breaches, the 

proposed regulations in § 200.85(f)(3) 

and (f)(4) would require SEAs to collect 

and maintain minimum documentation 

identifying MSIX users and their 

authorizing supervisors. The OMBapproved User Application Form (OMB 

Approval No. 1810–0686) contains the 

minimum information that the 

Department needs for this purpose, 

including a certification signed by the 

proposed user to abide by the MSIX 

rules of behavior issued by the 

Department. Under proposed 

§ 200.85(f)(3), an SEA may use either 

this OMB-approved form or another 

document that the SEA has developed 

that contains the information required 

by the OMB-approved form. By 

requiring SEAs to retain their records 

authorizing access to MSIX for a 

minimum of three years, the Department 

may gain access to these records when 

needed consistent with the general 

three-year record retention period in 34 

CFR 80.42. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79231 

This proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

regulations only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that these proposed regulations 

are consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

Orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed regulations are necessary in 

order for the Department to implement 

effectively the requirement in section 

1308(b) of the ESEA that the Secretary 

ensure the linkage of migrant student 

record systems and for the effective 

implementation of the MEP by States 

and local agencies serving migrant 

children. The Secretary also believes 

that the requirements contained in these 

proposed regulations represent a careful 

balance between placing burden on 

States and other agencies providing 

services to migrant children and 

meeting the need for collecting and 

maintaining updated, accurate 

information about this mobile 

population in order to ensure timely 

transfer of pertinent school records 

when migrant children move from one 

school to another. 

The Secretary also believes that the 

proposed regulations are necessary 

because implementation of a statutorily 

required system for transferring migrant 

student records will not be completely 

successful if the system does not 

contain complete, updated, and accurate 

student records and if not all States use 

the system as the official mechanism for 

transferring migrant student records. 

Although MSIX has been operational 

since 2007 and most States now submit 

data on their migrant children to the 

system voluntarily, not all States submit 

data on all the migrant children they 

have documented as eligible or submit 

all the required data elements. These 

data elements (known as ‘‘minimum 

data elements,’’ or ‘‘MDEs’’) encompass 

three types of information: Basic 

information on migrant children 

(including their eligibility for migrant 

services and school enrollment 

information, if any), also known as core 

data elements; information pertaining to 

State assessments; and information 

about high school credits and grades, 

which pertains only to secondary 

students. 

As described in the following 

paragraphs, the Department estimates 

that the total cost to participating SEAs 

of implementing these proposed 

regulations is approximately 

$18,516,444 for the first year, and 

$15,986,441 annually thereafter. The 

estimated burden per eligible child, 

amortized over three years, is 

approximately one hour and 10 

minutes, at an approximate cost of 

$38.54 per year. These estimates cover 

all proposed regulatory requirements, 

including the costs of information 

collection activities, which are 

discussed separately under the heading 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. As of 

September 2012, 22 States have 

provided complete start-up submissions 

for all MDEs; an additional 27 States 

have provided partial start-up 

submissions; and only one State has not 

provided any data to MSIX. Thus, the 

first-year estimate excludes start-up 

costs that have already been incurred by 

participating SEAs since MSIX began 

operating in 2007, as well as costs for 

using records, data quality, data 

protection, and data correction 

(activities required under § 200.85(c)– 

(f)) for those 22 States that have 

provided complete start-up 

submissions. 

These costs will not all be borne by 

the States and their local operating 

agencies; the Department provides 

resources to States, both monetary and 

non-monetary, to assist them in 

implementing MSIX activities 

successfully. For example, in 2007 the 

Department paid for contractors to work 

with States to develop system interfaces 

that allow State data systems housing 

migrant student data to connect to MSIX 

directly, avoiding the need to enter 

information into MSIX manually if it 

already exists in a data system. In 2008 

and 2010 the Department provided 

modest funding to States under the 

MSIX Data Quality program that could 

be used for developing these interfaces, 

improving the quality of migrant 

student data, and submitting data to 

MSIX, and the Department expects to 

provide such funding in the future. In 

addition, the Department has provided 

extensive technical assistance to States 

on issues of data quality and security 

not only through the MEP, but also 

through the State Longitudinal Data 

System program and as part of the 

implementation of the Education Data 

Exchange Network and other data 

collections that are part of the EDFacts 

system. Each of these activities will 

result in reduced costs of implementing 

these proposed regulations. Further, and 

most importantly, States may use MEP 

funds to cover the costs associated with 

implementing the proposed regulations 

(albeit with the result that less MEP 

funding is then available for direct 

services). A more detailed discussion of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79232 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the costs of each regulatory requirement 

follows. 

In order to help calculate the time 

estimates associated with the various 

proposed data submission requirements, 

the Department surveyed State officials 

in nine States with varying numbers of 

migrant children regarding the time it 

takes them to collect and enter these 

data in their State data systems; the 

Department used for its estimates the 

median number of minutes that States 

provided in their responses. Estimates 

of the numbers of migrant children for 

whom States will submit information to 

MSIX were derived from Consolidated 

State Performance Reports (CSPRs) for 

the 2010–2011 program year and 

include the number of migrant children 

ages 0–21 that States reported as eligible 

for MEP services in program year 2010– 

2011 (418,643), the number of eligible 

K–12 children enrolled in school 

(298,159), the number of eligible 

secondary students (83,838), and the 

number of migrant students reported as 

having taken State assessments 

(125,293). The hourly cost used for 

these estimates was $33.02, the mean 

hourly earnings for State and local 

government management, professional, 

and related occupations reported by the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in its 

National Compensation Survey: 

Occupational Earnings in the United 

States, 2010. 

The Secretary estimates that the onetime cost for providing start-up 

submissions to MSIX under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(2), excluding costs that were 

incurred by States before these proposed 

regulations, is approximately 

$2,077,537. 

That figure assumes that State and 

local officials take approximately 53 

minutes per student to collect, enter 

into the State data system, and submit 

to MSIX general demographic and 

enrollment data elements that pertain to 

all migrant children who have been 

documented as eligible for the program; 

approximately 5 minutes per student for 

the data elements pertaining to students 

who participate in State assessments; 

and approximately 55 minutes per 

student for the course history data 

elements pertaining only to eligible 

secondary students. 

The Secretary estimates that the 

annual costs for complying with 

proposed § 200.85(b)(3), which covers 

subsequent submissions to MSIX of data 

on newly documented migrant children, 

updates to MSIX at the end of every 

school term, and updates to MSIX if a 

receiving State or local agency notifies 

a sending State or local agency that a 

migrant child has moved, will be 

approximately $15,338,820. Within that 

estimate, the Department estimates the 

annual costs of implementing the 

requirements under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i), covering collection and 

submission of data to MSIX for newly 

documented migratory children, at 

$5,681,377. The Department estimates 

the annual number of newly 

documented migrant children to be 

121,602 based on the number of 

qualifying moves for migrant children 

that States reported to the Department 

in section 2.3.1.5 of the CSPR for 

program year 2010–2011. The number of 

newly documented migrant children for 

whom there will be data elements 

pertaining to assessment data (36,394) 

and secondary schooling (22,855) is 

based on the proportion of those 

students in the population of migrant 

students enrolled in grades K–12 during 

school year 2010–2011. The Department 

assumes the same time estimates used 

for calculating burden for collecting and 

submitting data for start-up submissions 

as are assumed for the calculations of 

other proposed data submission 

requirements under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(2). Based on responses to the 

Department’s survey of States discussed 

above, the Department also estimates an 

additional effort of 1 hour and 10 

minutes per student to collect data 

elements for a secondary student who 

previously attended another secondary 

school in the same State (proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(1)) and another 40 

minutes to determine if, and notify 

MSIX when, a local agency has received 

secondary school records from out of 

State for a newly documented secondary 

student (proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(2)). 

The cost estimate for implementing 

the requirements under proposed 

§ 200.85(b)(3)(ii), end of term 

submissions, is $9,618,004. The 

estimate assumes that States must 

provide updated data for every migrant 

child once over the course of each year 

for most, but not all, of the data 

elements pertaining to all children, and 

that that effort will take approximately 

42 minutes per migrant child. The time 

burden, which the Department 

estimated based on the experience of 

Department staff who have worked on 

migrant programs at the State level, also 

assumes a smaller burden for this effort 

than that for start-up data submissions 

because some States have developed 

automated processes for collecting this 

information and providing these 

updates to MSIX. 

MSIX is structured so that many of 

the data elements in a student’s record 

must be updated every year; for 

example, when a student finishes a 

grade level the student must be marked 

as ‘‘withdrawn’’ from that grade, and 

when the student enters the following 

grade the next school year the student 

is then marked as ‘‘enrolled’’ in the new 

grade. Thus, updates may happen 

throughout the school year, but will 

likely only occur once a year, for a 

subset of the data elements required for 

start-up submissions. There are a 

smaller number of data elements, such 

as birth city, that would not require an 

update. In addition, the estimate 

assumes that States will need five 

minutes per student for the data 

elements pertaining to those who 

participate in State assessments, the 

same effort as for start-up submissions, 

as those assessments are administered 

only once a year. The Department’s 

estimate also assumes 55 minutes per 

student for the data elements pertaining 

only to secondary students, the same 

effort as for start-up submissions, as the 

Department’s previously discussed 

survey asked States to report their 

estimated average burden for data 

elements for secondary students 

regardless of the number of courses in 

which secondary students were 

enrolled. 

The estimate for the annual costs of 

implementing the requirements under 

proposed § 200.85(b)(3)(iii), change of 

residence submissions, is approximately 

$39,438. This estimate is based on the 

637 requests that receiving States or 

local agencies (i.e., States or local 

agencies where migrant students 

moved) made through MSIX in the 

2010–2011 school year to request 

records from sending States or local 

agencies (i.e., a student’s previous 

location of enrollment). This number is 

low because, apart from the proposed 

end of term data submission 

requirements, the proposed regulations 

require a sending State to update a 

student record only if it receives 

notification from a receiving State or 

local agency (through MSIX) that it has 

enrolled a student formerly enrolled in 

the sending State. However, the 

proposed regulations do not require 

receiving States (or their local agencies) 

to notify the student’s former location 

that the student has changed residence. 

This allows a State or local agency 

enrolling a student the flexibility to 

determine if there are data missing from 

a student’s MSIX record, and send a 

notification (through MSIX) to a 

student’s former location requesting an 

updated student record only if needed. 

In addition, the Department expects 

that, as implementation of these 

regulations takes effect, MSIX records 

will be updated regularly and data 

elements will not likely be missing, thus 

reducing the need for a State or local 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79233 

agency to request data elements from 

another location upon a student’s 

change of residence. Furthermore, 

proposed § 200.85(b)(3)(ii) requires 

SEAs to update MSIX records at the end 

of each term; therefore, States and local 

agencies are most likely to use MSIX to 

request records from a previous location 

under § 200.85(b)(3)(iii) only for 

students moving in the middle of the 

term. An analysis of MSIX data on the 

timing of student moves during school 

year 2010–2011 showed that 

approximately 52 percent of the moves 

occurred during the summer months, 

after the end of the school year; that 

proportion is 63 percent if the moves 

that occurred in January are included, 

all of which should further reduce the 

number of data submissions under the 

proposed change of residence provision 

in § 200.85(b)(3)(iii). 

The estimate for the total costs of 

implementing the proposed 

requirements under § 200.85(c), using 

consolidated migrant student records 

contained in MSIX; § 200.85(d), 

establishing rules pertaining to the 

quality of data submitted to MSIX; and 

§ 200.85(f), establishing rules pertaining 

to the protection of data submitted to 

MSIX, is approximately $1,099,180. The 

Department estimates that the main 

costs for implementing these 

requirements are associated with the 

time that will be needed to establish 

policies and procedures to address the 

use of MSIX, data quality, and data 

protection; develop and disseminate the 

guidance and procedures to SEA and 

local personnel; and provide training to 

State and local personnel who have 

access to MSIX. 

In order to minimize the burden on 

States of complying with these proposed 

requirements, the Department 

developed a template for a State manual 

to assist the States in developing 

policies and procedures for using MSIX, 

ensuring data quality, and protecting the 

data; the Department also developed a 

training kit for State officials to use in 

carrying out training within their States. 

Based on the experience of Department 

staff who have worked on migrant 

programs at the State level, the 

Department estimates that each State 

will spend approximately 120 hours 

developing policies and procedures 

with the aid of the template; using the 

same cost per hour used for the 

proposed data submission requirements, 

the one-time cost of establishing 

policies and procedures will be an 

estimated $198,120. To calculate the 

costs of training State and local 

personnel in the use of MSIX and 

associated policies and procedures, the 

Department estimates 10 person-hours 

per State for developing training 

sessions using the training kit and 2- 

hour training sessions for approximately 

3,577 users of MSIX. (This estimate is 

based on 2,365 current active users, 

which is expected to increase by 25 

percent during the first year these 

proposed regulations are implemented 

and 10 percent for each of the following 

two years.) Based on the same cost per 

hour used for the proposed data 

submission requirements, the total 

training cost is an estimated $252,735. 

In addition, State personnel will 

likely need the assistance of an 

information technology professional at 

the State level to run reports and 

monitor the data collected and 

submitted to MSIX, to review system 

security, and to work with other State or 

local personnel to remedy any concerns 

or problems with the data. The 

Department estimates that it will take 32 

hours per month for one computer 

support specialist per State to 

accomplish this work, at a salary of 

$23.60 an hour (the mean hourly 

earnings for computer support 

specialists in State and local 

government reported by the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics in its National 

Compensation Survey: Occupational 

Earnings in the United States, 2010), for 

a total of $344,371. The estimate also 

includes an additional $301,895 for 

complying with proposed § 200.85(c), 

using consolidated records in MSIX, to 

meet costs associated with development 

of electronic interfaces and 

communications between State data 

systems and MSIX. The Department 

provided resources for this work, as 

discussed earlier, and estimates that the 

burden associated with doing this work 

is approximately 241 hours per State 

using the same methodology as that 

used to estimate the time needed for 

start-up submissions. The estimate 

further includes an additional $49,607 

for complying with the requirement in 

proposed § 200.85(f) that MSIX users fill 

out user application forms, which the 

Department estimates at 5 minutes, and 

for a supervisor to review a user 

application form and other 

documentation in order to determine 

whether to grant access to MSIX to an 

applicant, which the Department 

estimates at 20 minutes, for a total of 25 

minutes to grant access to a user. This 

cost is based on 3,577 users (as 

discussed previously) and the same 

labor cost as that used to calculate the 

proposed data submission requirements. 

The estimate for implementing the 

proposed requirements under 

§ 200.85(e), procedures for MSIX data 

correction by parents, guardians, and 

migratory children, is approximately 

$908. Based on responses to the 

Department’s survey of States discussed 

above, the Department estimates the 

number of requests to States to correct 

data to be one per State per year and 

that each request will take 

approximately 38 minutes to 

acknowledge, review, make any 

necessary corrections to the data, and 

notify the requester of the resolution to 

the request. In addition, the Department, 

based on its experience in implementing 

MSIX to date, estimates receiving six 

requests per year nationally for data 

correction from parents, guardians, or 

migrant children, and anticipates that 

States will similarly require an average 

of 38 minutes to address any requests 

from the Department on this matter. The 

cost per hour used is the same as that 

used to estimate start-up data 

submissions. 

While it is difficult to quantify the 

benefits of these proposed regulations, 

we believe that they will provide 

important benefits to migrant children 

and their families and to States and 

local agencies, particularly for the 

approximately 26 percent of migrant 

students who move across school 

district boundaries each year (based on 

data States reported for school year 

2010–2011). Overall, one of the major 

benefits of these proposed regulations is 

that instantaneous access to records of 

children who have previously been 

identified as migrant will reduce the 

time it takes to enroll a student in a new 

school and the time needed for placing 

a student in appropriate classes. Prompt 

placement is necessary not only to 

ensure continuity of schooling and other 

services, but also to ensure that students 

receive the maximum benefits they are 

entitled to under MEP, as the program 

limits the amount of time that migrant 

children may receive services. Prompt 

access to records also reduces the 

likelihood of duplication of services and 

helps ensure that students are placed in 

the right classes, reducing the likelihood 

that a student will repeat classes or be 

placed in an inappropriate class, actions 

that adversely affect students 

academically and emotionally. For 

secondary school students, the benefits 

will also include having a record 

documenting credit accrual, thus 

increasing the likelihood that a student 

will graduate from high school on a 

timely basis. 

As MSIX incorporates information 

about inoculation records, it also helps 

prevent duplication of vaccinations, an 

unnecessary additional expense for 

families and community health systems. 

Most States require students to be 

vaccinated, at a minimum, for polio, 

diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79234 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and 

varicella. The combined cost per dose as 

of July 2012 for these vaccinations 

under the Center for Disease Control 

vaccine contracts (established for the 

purchase of vaccines by immunization 

programs that receive CDC 

immunization grant funds, such as State 

health departments) was approximately 

$144, and the average cost of the same 

vaccine to the private sector was 

approximately $210. Reducing duplicate 

vaccinations also preserves the vaccine 

supply for others in the community. In 

addition, MSIX incorporates a flag for 

students with acute or chronic medical 

conditions, thus instantly alerting 

school personnel enrolling a migrant 

student to the fact that the student may 

need additional support services and 

referrals to medical care. 

We further note that these proposed 

regulations were informed by the 

Department’s and the States’ previous 

experience in implementing a migrant 

student record transfer service in the 

1970s through the 1990s. The Migrant 

Student Record Transfer System 

(MSRTS) was a national, computerbased system for records collection and 

transfer established in response to a 

1969 congressional mandate requiring 

the creation of a service for transmitting 

educational and health records for 

migrant students. MSRTS was 

terminated in 1995 due both to concerns 

about the accuracy and usefulness of the 

data in the system and to the lack of 

uniformity in the data reported to the 

system. In addition, many users 

considered MSRTS too slow and 

burdensome, as the computer 

technology used still relied largely on a 

paper-based system for collecting and 

reporting information that did not 

incorporate technological advancements 

efficiently, making it an inefficient 

mechanism for meeting its mission. 

These proposed regulations have been 

designed to ensure that MSIX users have 

ready access to complete, up-to-date 

records that they may trust, and to 

ensure that the transfer of those records 

through MSIX occurs efficiently. 

The proposed requirement that 

agencies serving migrant children use 

MSIX and the Consolidated Migrant 

Student Records MSIX generates would 

ensure not only that information in 

MSIX is used, but also that the agencies 

acquire an interest in ensuring the 

quality and timeliness of the data they 

provide to and obtain from the system. 

Other benefits would include access to 

migrant records that are current, 

accurate, secure, and complete, and that 

contain data that may be currently 

maintained in different systems within 

States; for example, data from State 

assessments may not be maintained in 

the same system where student health 

records are maintained. States’ current 

voluntary participation in MSIX reflects 

the fact that this service is valuable to 

them and enables them to better serve 

one of their most vulnerable 

populations. 

For these reasons, the Department 

believes that the benefits of these 

proposed regulations would 

significantly exceed the somewhat 

minor estimated costs, much of which 

would be met with Federal resources. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Secretary invites comments on 

how to make these proposed regulations 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol 

‘‘§ ’’ and numbered heading; for 

example, § 200.85.) 

• Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed regulations would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because these proposed regulations 

affect primarily SEAs. SEAs are not 

defined as ‘‘small entities’’ in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The only 

small entities that could be affected by 

the proposed regulations would be 

small local operating agencies that 

receive MEP subgrants from an SEA or 

entities that contract with SEAs to 

provide various services in connection 

with MSIX activities. Local operating 

agencies would be required to submit 

data on migratory children to a State’s 

data system under timeframes identified 

in the proposed regulations. However, 

the costs of doing so would likely be 

financed through the State’s MEP award 

and would not impose a significant 

financial burden that small entities 

would have to meet from non-Federal 

resources. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: The public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

Section 200.85 contains information 

collection requirements. Under the PRA 

the Department has submitted a copy of 

this section to OMB for its review. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

Minimum data elements (MDEs) 

consist of 72 data elements that reflect 

the minimal information needed to 

ensure proper enrollment, grade and 

course placement, and accrual of 

secondary course credits for migratory 

children. The MDEs, and the various 

information sources through which they 

are currently obtained, would not 

change as a result of the proposed 

regulations except for the collection of 

one new MDE related to the records of 

secondary school-aged children. 

Thirty of the MDEs are collected and 

entered into State data systems through 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79235 

the information collection requests 

(ICRs) for the Department’s Education 

Data Exchange Network (EDEN) (OMB 

Control Number 1875–0240) and for the 

Migrant Education Program (MEP) 

Certificate of Eligibility (COE) and 

related regulations (OMB Control 

Number 1810–0662). There is no need 

to account here for the burden of 

collecting, maintaining, and submitting 

to MSIX these 30 MDEs because these 

MDEs are already collected and 

maintained for other purposes, and we 

have assumed that submission of these 

MDEs to MSIX would occur 

automatically once a State’s electronic 

interface with MSIX has been 

established. 

Forty-one of the remaining 42 MDEs 

are collected and entered into the State 

data systems under the existing MSIX 

ICR (OMB Control Number 1810–0683). 

In addition to creating a new MDE, the 

proposed regulations would change the 

parties to whom the collection applies 

as well as the content, timing, and 

circumstances of submissions of data 

under the existing ICR. As a result, we 

propose to amend and restate the MSIX 

ICR to reflect, among other things, a new 

burden analysis and supporting 

statement. In the final regulations we 

will display the existing MSIX ICR OMB 

control number 1810–0683 on all 

information collection requirements in 

these proposed regulations and adopted 

in the final regulations. 

Section 200.85—Responsibilities of 

SEAs for the Electronic Exchange 

Through MSIX of Specified Health and 

Educational Information of Migratory 

Children 

Proposed § 200.85 would require 

SEAs to collect, maintain, and submit to 

MSIX educational and health 

information on migrant children who 

move from one State or district to 

another. This information would enable 

SEAs to reduce educational disruptions 

for migrant children, make timely and 

accurate school placements, ensure 

academic credit for school work 

completed, streamline academic 

progression toward graduation 

requirements, and provide complete 

academic records as needed for 

postsecondary education and 

employment opportunities. The 

exchange of health information through 

MSIX would also help reduce 

unnecessary immunizations of migrant 

children because of a lack of timely, 

accurate health information. 

Estimates of Annualized Burden to SEA 

Respondents 

For the 42 MDEs not covered by other 

information collections, the total burden 

for all SEA respondents in the first three 

years after the effective date of the 

proposed regulations is estimated at 

465,866 hours per year. This amounts to 

an average of 9,317 hours per year for 

each of the 50 participating SEAs. 

Because eligibility for MEP services 

varies greatly among the States, we have 

also estimated the overall burden as 

1,113 hours annually per 1,000 eligible 

children to enable individual SEAs to 

assess the burden of the information 

collection. 

These estimates were developed by 

program and contract staff with 

experience in the State-level 

administration of the MEP based upon 

consultation with States, analysis of the 

information reported by each State in its 

2010–2011 CSPR (OMB Number 1810– 

0614), and State data submitted 

previously to MSIX. Note, the estimated 

burden to collect the MDE information 

includes the effort to enter the data in 

the appropriate State information 

systems for electronic transmission to 

MSIX. 

In calculating the burden of this 

information collection, we have not 

included the burden associated with 

start-up submissions previously made to 

MSIX in whole or in part. In calculating 

the burden associated with subsequent 

data submissions, our estimates quantify 

the total annualized burden to SEAs, 

and do not specify the incremental 

burden to those SEAs that have 

previously collected, maintained, and 

submitted to MSIX any or all the MDEs 

covered by the MSIX ICR relating to 

subsequent data submissions. 

See the discussion below for a further 

explanation of the burden related to 

specific regulatory provisions. 

Additional information about the basis 

of the burden estimates in this 

document is available at 

www.reginfo.gov. Click on Information 

Collection Review. The proposed 

collection is identified as proposed 

collection [1810–0683 ED–2013–ICCD– 

0154]. 

Start-Up Data Submissions 

(§ 200.85(b)(2)(i)) 

As of September 2012, twenty-two 

States had already met the requirement 

to collect and submit to MSIX MDEs for 

every migrant child considered eligible 

in the State within the preceding year; 

an additional 27 States had provided 

partial start-up submissions; and only 

one State has not provided any data to 

MSIX. We used these figures for our 

start-up data submissions calculations. 

Start-up data is a one-time requirement 

for each SEA; submissions are required 

to be completed no later than 90 

calendar days after the effective date of 

the final regulations. Amortized over 

three years, the annualized burden of 

the requirement for the remaining 28 

States is estimated to be 21,651 hours 

per year in total and 773 hours per year 

per SEA. All subsequent data 

submission requirements are covered by 

the other information collection 

activities described below. 

Newly Documented Migratory Children 

(§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(A)) 

The annualized burden of the 

requirement for 50 States to collect and 

submit the MSIX MDEs within 10 days 

of documenting the eligibility of each 

new migratory child is estimated at 

109,435 hours per year in total and 

2,189 hours per SEA. Documenting the 

eligibility of migratory children is an 

ongoing process, and we estimate the 

burden would remain at a constant level 

in each of the three years that this 

information collection covers. 

Newly Documented Migratory Children 

With Prior Secondary School Records 

in the Same State 

(§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(1)) 

The annualized burden of the 

requirement for SEAs to collect and 

submit to MSIX MDEs from the most 

recent secondary school attended 

previously within the State is estimated 

at 26,664 hours per year in total and 533 

hours per year for each SEA. Collecting 

and submitting secondary school 

information for newly documented 

migratory children is an ongoing 

process, and we estimate the burden 

would remain at a constant level in each 

of the three years that this information 

collection covers. 

Newly Documented Migratory Children 

With Secondary School Records From 

Another State (§ 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(2)) 

The annualized burden of the 

requirement for SEAs to notify MSIX 

within 30 days of obtaining out-of-state 

secondary school records for a newly 

documented migratory child is 

estimated at 15,609 hours per year in 

total and 312 hours per year for each 

SEA. Our burden estimate includes a 

one-time effort for each State to modify 

its State data system and MSIX interface 

to collect and submit a new MDE to 

indicate whether or not out-of-state 

school records are present at an LEA for 

a migrant student (this one-year effort is 

amortized over the three years of the 

collection). Documenting migratory 

children is an ongoing process, and the 

burden remains at a constant level in 

each of the three years that this 

information collection covers. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79236 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

End of Term Submissions 

(§ 200.85(b)(3)(ii)) 

The annualized burden of the 

requirement to collect and submit 

updated and newly available MDEs to 

MSIX within 30 days after the end of 

each educational term for all eligible 

MEP children is estimated at 291,278 

hours per year in total and 5,826 hours 

per year per SEA. This is an ongoing 

process, and the burden remains at a 

constant level in each of the three years 

that this information collection covers. 

Notice of Change of Residence 

Submissions (§ 200.85(b)(3)(iii)) 

The annualized burden of the 

requirement to collect and submit to 

MSIX all new and updated MDEs within 

four working days of receiving 

notification from MSIX that a migratory 

child has changed residence is 

estimated at 1,194 hours per year in 

total and 24 hours per year per SEA. 

This is an ongoing process, and we 

estimate the burden would remain at a 

constant level in each of the three years 

that this information collection covers. 

Parental Request to SEAs for MSIX 

Data Correction (§ 200.85(e)(1)(ii)) 

The annualized burden for SEAs to 

submit revised data to MSIX within four 

working days of the decision to correct 

previously submitted data following a 

request from a parent, guardian, or 

student is estimated at 31 hours per year 

in total and .06 hours per year per SEA. 

This is an ongoing process, and we 

estimate the burden would remain at a 

constant level in each of the three years 

that this information collection covers. 

Parental Request to the Department for 

MSIX Data Correction (§ 200.85(e)(3)) 

The annualized burden for SEAs to 

respond within 10 working days to a 

request from the Department for 

information needed by the Department 

to respond to an individual’s request to 

correct or amend a Consolidated 

Migrant Student Record under the 

Federal Privacy Act is estimated at four 

hours per year in total and 0.1 hour per 

year per SEA. This is an ongoing 

process, and we estimate the burden 

would remain at a constant level in each 

of the three years that the information 

collection covers. 

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

Reporting activity Description Total burden 

1. Start-up Data Submission § 200.85(b)(2)(i) ........................... Collect and submit to MSIX MDEs (applicable to child’s age 

and grade level) for every migrant child whom the SEA considered eligible for MEP services within one year preceding 

the effective date of the regulations.

21,651 

2. Newly Documented Migratory Children § 200.85(b)(3)(i)(A) .. Collect and submit to MSIX all MDEs (applicable to child’s age 

and grade level) for newly documented migrant students.

109,435 

3. Newly Documented Migratory Children with Secondary 

School Records in the Same State § 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(1).

Collect and submit all applicable MDEs from the most recent 

secondary school previously attended by the student within 

the same State.

26,664 

4. Newly Documented Migratory Children with Secondary 

School Records from Another State § 200.85(b)(3)(i)(B)(2).

Notify MSIX if one of its local operating agencies obtains 

records from a secondary school previously attended by the 

migrant student in another State.

15,609 

5. End of Term Submissions § 200.85(b)(3)(ii) .......................... Collect and submit to MSIX all MDE updates and newly available MDEs for migratory children who were eligible for the 

MEP during the term and for whom the SEA previously submitted data.

291,278 

6. Change of Residence Submissions § 200.85(b)(3)(iii) ........... Collect and submit to MSIX all newly available MDEs and 

MDE updates that have become available to the SEA or 

one of its local operating agencies.

1,194 

7. Parental Request for MSIX Data Correction 

§ 200.85(e)(1)(ii).

If an SEA determines that data previously submitted to MSIX 

should be corrected as the result of a request from a parent, 

guardian, or migrant student, the SEA must submit revised 

data.

31 

8. Response to the Department § 200.85(e)(3) ......................... Submit information requested by the Department needed to 

respond to an individual’s request to amend a record under 

the Privacy Act.

4 

If you want to comment on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements, please send your 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for U.S. Department of 

Education. Send these comments by 

email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov 

or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may 

also send a copy of these comments to 

the Department contact named in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble or 

submit them electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov by selecting 

Docket ID number ED–2013–ICCD– 

0154. 

We have prepared an ICR for this 

collection. In preparing your comments 

you may want to review the ICR, which 

is available at www.reginfo.gov. Click on 

Information Collection Review. This 

proposed collection is identified as 

proposed collection [1810–0683 ED– 

2013–ICCD–0154]. 

We consider your comments on this 

proposed collection of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in these proposed regulations 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure 

that OMB gives your comments full 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79237 

consideration, it is important that OMB 

receives your comments by January 27, 

2014. This does not affect the deadline 

for your comments to us on the 

proposed regulations. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary 

particularly requests comments on 

whether these proposed regulations 

would require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires us to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local elected officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. 

‘‘Federalism implications’’ means 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

regulations in § 200.85 may have 

federalism implications. We encourage 

State and local elected officials to 

review and provide comments on these 

proposed regulations. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department 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. (Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Number 84.011: 

Title I, Education of Migrant Children.) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200 

Education of disadvantaged, 

Elementary and secondary education, 

Grant programs-education, Indianseducation, Infants and children, 

Juvenile delinquency, Migrant labor, 

Private schools, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 13, 2013. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary of Education 

proposes to amend part 200 of title 34 

of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE 

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE 

DISADVANTAGED 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 200 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C 6301 through 6578, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 200.81 is amended by: 

■ A. Redesignating paragraphs (h) 

through (k) as paragraphs (m) through 

(p). 

■ B. Redesignating paragraph (g) as 

paragraph (j). 

■ C. Redesignating paragraphs (d) 

through (f) as paragraphs (f) through (h). 

■ D. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and 

(c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), 

respectively. 

■ E. Adding new paragraphs (b), (e), (i), 

(k), and (l). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 200.81 Program definitions 

* * * * * 

(b) Consolidated Migrant Student 

Record means the MDEs for a migratory 

child that have been submitted by one 

or more SEAs and consolidated into a 

single, uniquely identified record 

available through MSIX. 

* * * * * 

(e) Migrant Student Information 

Exchange (MSIX) means the nationwide 

system administered by the Department 

for linking and exchanging specified 

health and educational information for 

all migratory children. 

* * * * * 

(i) Minimum Data Elements (MDEs) 

means the health and educational 

information for migratory children that 

the Secretary requires each SEA that 

receives a grant of MEP funds to collect, 

maintain, and submit to MSIX, and use 

under this part. MDEs may include— 

(1) Immunization records and other 

health information; 

(2) Academic history (including 

partial credit, credit accrual, and results 

from State assessments required under 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act); 

(3) Other academic information 

essential to ensuring that migratory 

children achieve to high academic 

standards; and 

(4) Information regarding eligibility 

for services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act. 

* * * * * 

(k) MSIX Interconnection Agreement 

means the agreement between the 

Department and a State educational 

agency that governs the interconnection 

of the State student records system and 

MSIX, including the terms under which 

the agency will abide by the agreement 

based upon its review of all relevant 

technical, security, and administrative 

issues. 

(l) MSIX Interconnection Security 

Agreement means the agreement 

between the Department and a State 

educational agency that specifies the 

technical and security requirements for 

establishing, maintaining, and operating 

the interconnection between the State 

student records system and MSIX. The 

MSIX Interconnection Security 

Agreement supports the MSIX 

Interconnection Agreement and 

documents the requirements for 

connecting the two information 

technology systems, describes the 

security controls to be used to protect 

the systems and data, and contains a 

topological drawing of the 

interconnection. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 200.84 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 200.84 Responsibilities for evaluating 

the effectiveness of the MEP and using 

evaluations to improve services to 

migratory children. 

(a) Each SEA must determine the 

effectiveness of its MEP through a 

written evaluation that measures the 

implementation and results achieved by 

the program against the State’s 

performance targets in § 200.83(a)(1), 

particularly for those students who have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
79238 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

priority for service as defined in section 

1304(d) of the ESEA. 

(b) SEAs and local operating agencies 

receiving MEP funds must use the 

results of the evaluation carried out by 

an SEA under paragraph (a) of this 

section to improve the services provided 

to migratory children. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6394) 

■ 4. Section 200.85 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 200.85 Responsibilities of SEAs for the 

electronic exchange through MSIX of 

specified health and educational 

information of migratory children. 

(a) MSIX State record system and data 

exchange requirements. In order to 

receive a grant of MEP funds, an SEA 

must collect, maintain, and submit to 

MSIX MDEs and otherwise exchange 

and use information on migratory 

children in accordance with the 

requirements of this section. Failure of 

an SEA to do so constitutes a failure 

under section 454 of the General 

Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 

1234c, to comply substantially with a 

requirement of law applicable to the 

funds made available under the MEP. 

(b) MSIX data submission 

requirements—(1) General. In order to 

satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (3) of this section, an SEA that 

receives a grant of MEP funds must 

submit electronically to MSIX the MDEs 

applicable to the child’s age and grade 

level that the Secretary has determined 

are needed to implement section 

1308(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

(2) Start-up data submissions. (i) No 

later than 90 calendar days after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

an SEA must collect and submit to 

MSIX each of the MDEs described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

applicable to the child’s age and grade 

level for every migratory child whom 

the SEA considered eligible for MEP 

services in accordance with § 200.89(c) 

within one year preceding the effective 

date of the final regulations. 

(ii) An SEA must make start-up data 

submissions to MSIX for a migratory 

child whether or not the SEA has a 

current Certificate of Eligibility under 

§ 200.89(c) for the child at the time the 

SEA submits the data to MSIX under 

this paragraph (b)(2). 

(3) Subsequent data submissions. An 

SEA must comply with the following 

timelines for subsequent data 

submissions throughout the entire 

calendar year whether or not local 

operating agencies or LEAs in the State 

are closed for summer or intersession 

periods. 

(i) Newly documented migratory 

children. For every migratory child for 

whom an SEA documents eligibility for 

the MEP under § 200.89(c) on or after 

the effective date of these regulations— 

(A) An SEA must collect and submit 

to MSIX the MDEs described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 

ten working days of documenting the 

child’s eligibility. The SEA is not 

required to collect and submit MDEs in 

existence before its documentation of 

the child’s eligibility for the MEP except 

as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of 

this section; and 

(B) An SEA that documents the 

eligibility of a secondary school-aged 

migratory child must also— 

(1) Collect and submit to MSIX MDEs 

from the most recent secondary school 

in that State attended previously by the 

newly documented migratory child; and 

(2) Notify MSIX within 30 calendar 

days if one of its local operating 

agencies obtains records from a 

secondary school attended previously 

by the newly documented migratory 

child in another State. 

(ii) End of term submissions. (A) 

Within 30 calendar days of the end of 

an LEA’s or local operating agency’s fall, 

spring, summer, or intersession terms, 

an SEA must collect and submit to 

MSIX all MDE updates and newly 

available MDEs for migratory children 

who were eligible for the MEP during 

the term and for whom the SEA 

submitted data previously under 

paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3)(i) of this 

section. 

(B) When a migratory child’s MEP 

eligibility expires before the end of a 

school year, an SEA must submit all 

MDE updates and newly available MDEs 

for the child through the end of the 

school year in which the child is 

enrolled. This submission includes all 

MDE updates and newly available MDEs 

for any child who continues to receive 

MEP services under section 1304(e) of 

the ESEA after expiration of MEP 

eligibility. 

(iii) Change of residence submissions. 

(A) Within four working days of 

receiving notification from MSIX that a 

migratory child in its State has changed 

residence to a new local operating 

agency within the State or has been 

newly documented as a migratory child 

in another State, an SEA must collect 

and submit to MSIX all new MDEs and 

MDE updates that have become 

available to the SEA or one of its local 

operating agencies since the SEA’s last 

submission of MDEs to MSIX for the 

child. 

(B) An SEA or local operating agency 

that does not have a new MDE or MDE 

update for a migratory child when it 

receives a change of residence 

notification from MSIX must submit the 

MDE to MSIX within four working days 

of the date that the SEA or one of its 

local operating agencies obtains the 

MDE. 

(c) Use of Consolidated Migrant 

Student Records. In order to help ensure 

proper participation in the MEP, school 

enrollment, grade and course 

placement, and accrual of all 

appropriate high school credits, each 

SEA that receives a grant of MEP funds 

must— 

(1) Use, and require each of its local 

operating agencies to use, the 

Consolidated Migrant Student Record 

for all migratory children who have 

changed residence to a new school 

district within the State or in another 

State; 

(2) Encourage LEAs that are not local 

operating agencies receiving MEP funds 

to use the Consolidated Migrant Student 

Record for all migratory children 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section; and 

(3) Establish procedures, develop and 

disseminate guidance, and provide 

training in the use of Consolidated 

Migrant Student Records to SEA, local 

operating agency, and LEA personnel 

who have been designated by the SEA 

as authorized MSIX users under 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

(d) MSIX data quality. Each SEA that 

receives a grant of MEP funds must— 

(1) Use, and require each of its local 

operating agencies to use, reasonable 

and appropriate methods to ensure that 

all data submitted to MSIX are accurate 

and complete; and 

(2) Respond promptly, and ensure 

that each of its local operating agencies 

responds promptly, to any request by 

the Department for information needed 

to meet the Department’s responsibility 

for the accuracy and completeness of 

data in MSIX in accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. 552a(e)(6) and (g)(1)(C) or (D). 

(e) Procedures for MSIX data 

correction by parents, guardians, and 

migratory children. Each SEA that 

receives a grant of MEP funds must 

establish and implement written 

procedures that allow a parent or 

guardian of a migratory child, or a 

migratory child, to ask the SEA to 

correct or determine the correctness of 

MSIX data. An SEA’s written 

procedures must meet the following 

minimum requirements: 

(1) Response to parents, guardians, 

and migratory children. (i) Within 30 

calendar days of receipt of a data 

correction request from a parent, 

guardian, or migratory child, an SEA 

must— 

(A) Send a written or electronic 

acknowledgement to the requester; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79239 

(B) Investigate the request; 

(C) Decide whether to revise the data 

as requested; and 

(D) Send the requester a written or 

electronic notice of the SEA’s decision. 

(ii) If an SEA determines that data it 

submitted previously to MSIX should be 

corrected, the SEA must submit the 

revised data to MSIX within four 

working days of its decision to correct 

the data. An SEA is not required to 

notify MSIX if it decides not to revise 

the data as requested. 

(iii)(A) If a parent, guardian, or 

migratory child asks an SEA to correct 

or determine the correctness of data that 

was submitted to MSIX by another SEA, 

within four working days of receipt of 

the request, the SEA must send the data 

correction request to the SEA that 

submitted the data to MSIX. 

(B) An SEA that receives an MSIX 

data correction request from another 

SEA under this paragraph must respond 

as if it received the data correction 

request directly from the parent, 

guardian, or migratory child. 

(2) Response to SEAs. An SEA or local 

operating agency that receives a request 

for information from an SEA that is 

responding to a parent’s, guardian’s, or 

migratory child’s data correction request 

under paragraph (e)(1) of this section 

must respond in writing within ten 

working days of receipt of the request. 

(3) Response to the Department. An 

SEA must respond in writing within ten 

working days to a request from the 

Department for information needed by 

the Department to respond to an 

individual’s request to correct or amend 

a Consolidated Migrant Student Record 

under the Privacy Act of 1974, as 

amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2) and 34 

CFR 5b.7. 

(f) MSIX data protection. Each SEA 

that receives a grant of MEP funds 

must— 

(1) Enter into and carry out its 

responsibilities in accordance with an 

MSIX Interconnection Agreement, an 

MSIX Interconnection Security 

Agreement, and other information 

technology agreements required by the 

Secretary in accordance with applicable 

Federal requirements; 

(2) Establish and implement written 

procedures to protect the integrity, 

security, and confidentiality of 

Consolidated Migrant Student Records, 

whether in electronic or print format, 

through appropriate administrative, 

technical, and physical safeguards 

established in accordance with the 

MSIX Interconnection Agreement and 

MSIX Interconnection Security 

Agreement. An SEA’s written 

procedures must include, at a 

minimum, reasonable methods to 

ensure that— 

(i) The SEA permits access to MSIX 

only by authorized users at the SEA, its 

local operating agencies, and LEAs in 

the State that are not local operating 

agencies but where a migratory child 

has enrolled; and 

(ii) The SEA’s authorized users obtain 

access to and use MSIX records solely 

for authorized purposes as described in 

paragraph (c) of this section; 

(3) Require all authorized users to 

complete the User Application Form 

approved by the Secretary before 

providing them access to MSIX. An SEA 

may also develop its own 

documentation for approving user 

access to MSIX provided that it contains 

the same information as the User 

Application Form approved by the 

Secretary; and 

(4) Retain the documentation required 

for approving user access to MSIX for 

three years after the date the SEA 

terminates the user’s access. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1810–0683) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398) 

[FR Doc. 2013–30260 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3