1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

OMB No. 1810-0662-v.9

MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM (MEP) 

FINAL REGULATIONS & 

CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBLITY (COE)

§§ 200.83, 200.84, 200.88 and 200.89

A. Justification

Q1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or 

administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of 

each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

A1. The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) is requesting an extension to the currently 

approved information collection OMB No. 1810-0662. This collection of information is necessary to 

collect information under the Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP). The MEP is authorized 

under sections 1301-1309 of Part C of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as 

amended. Regulations for the MEP are found at 34 CFR 200.81-200.89 (attached). This information 

collection covers regulations with information collection requirements (see below). These requirements 

pertain to information that State educational agencies (SEAs) must collect in order to properly administer 

the MEP. Most provisions do not require SEAs to submit the information collected to the Department, 

with the exception of the provisions under Section 200.89(b). 

The particular regulations with information collection requirements are §§ 200.83, 200.84, 200.88, and 

200.89 (b)-(d). No other currently approved MEP regulatory sections have information collection 

requirements. 

Section 200.83 establishes minimum requirements a State Educational Agency (SEA) must meet for 

development of a comprehensive needs assessment and plan for service delivery as required under 

Section 1306(a) of the ESEA. 

Section 200.84 establishes minimum requirements the SEA must meet to implement the program 

evaluation required under Section 1304(c)(2) of the ESEA. 

Section 200.88 clarifies for the purposes of the MEP, only "supplemental" State or local funds that are 

used for programs that meet the intent and purposes of the MEP may be excluded in terms of determining 

compliance with the "comparability" and "supplement, not supplant" provisions of the statute (section 

1120A(c) and section 1120A(b) of the ESEA, respectively). 

Section 200.89(b) establishes the minimum requirements an SEA must meet to carry out re-interviews of 

a sample of migrant families. Re-interviews allow SEAs to examine and validate their statewide MEP 

eligibility determinations, to generate a defect rate for adjusting SEA migrant child counts, if necessary, 

and to ensure ongoing quality control in future eligibility determinations. This regulatory requirement is

consistent with §§ 1303(e) and 1309(2) of ESEA. 

Section 200.89(c) establishes minimum requirements an SEA must meet to document its eligibility 

determinations under the MEP (including the use of a standard Certificate of Eligibility (COE) form 

[attached]). This regulatory requirement is consistent with §§ 1303(e) and 1309(2) of the ESEA.
2

Section 200.89(d) establishes minimum requirements for a system of quality controls that an SEA must 

implement to ensure accurate eligibility determinations under the MEP. This regulatory requirement is 

consistent with §§1303 (e) and 1309(2) of the ESEA.

A copy of the existing regulations, the relevant statutory sections, and the COE are attached.

Q2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new 

collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current 

collection.

A2. The needs assessment and service delivery information required by § 200.83 are used by the SEA to 

design and implement an effective statewide MEP. The evaluation information required by § 200.84 is 

used by the SEA to assess the effectiveness of the statewide MEP and to promote improved service 

delivery. The advance written determination by an SEA required by § 200.88 (that a State or locally 

funded program meets the intents and purposes of part C of Title I) is used by the SEA to support the 

exclusion of "supplemental" State or local funds in determining compliance with the "comparability" and 

"supplement, not supplant" provisions of the statute. 

The re-interview information required by § 200.89(b) is used by the SEA and the Secretary to estimate the 

accuracy of program eligibility determinations and to make needed improvements. The information is 

also used by the Secretary to make necessary adjustments to State MEP allocations; such information was 

used to adjust FY 2009 MEP allocations. The eligibility materials required by § 200.89(c) are used by 

SEAs to clearly document the basis for the determination of program eligibility of each migrant child 

identified by the SEA and for determining which children are eligible for MEP services. The information 

required by § 200.89(d) is used by the SEA to examine and document the implementation of its quality 

control system and to enable the SEA to determine and implement necessary improvements.

As noted in A1, this collection of information does not require SEAs to submit the information collected 

to the Department except for § 200.89(b). Instead, the information is for SEAs to use in documenting 

eligible migrant children and in designing, operating and evaluating their State MEP. 

 

Q3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology, 

e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision of adopting this means 

of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

A3. The regulations themselves do not require nor preclude SEAs from using automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological collection techniques to reduce burden. As noted earlier, most of the 

information to be collected by SEAs will not be further collected by the Department from the SEAs (with 

the exceptions of § 200.89(b)). SEAs electronically report as part of the Consolidated State Performance 

Report the results of the information collected under § 200.89(b)(2). The information collected under § 

200.89(b)(1) would be collected, if necessary, via a report that SEAs would send electronically to the 

Department. Many SEAs will use information technology (e.g., an electronic COE) to collect and 

analyze data. Facsimile and computer systems will be used to transmit and store data. 

Q4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already 

available cannot be used or modified for use of the purposes described in Item 2 above.

A4. The eligibility documentation information, the re-interviewing information, the quality control 

process documentation, the needs assessment and service delivery information, the evaluation 

information, and the advance written determination supporting the exclusion of "supplemental" State or 

local funds in determining compliance with the "comparability" and "supplement, not supplant" 
3

provisions of the statute required by this collection are unique to this program and the particular grantee. 

Other than state assessment data to be collected under the Title I assessment requirements for use in §§ 

200.83 and 200.84, the information to be collected by the SEA under §§ 200.83, 200.84, and 200.88 and 

§§ 200.89(b), 200.89(c) and 200.89(d) are not in any other data collection, and are necessary for the SEA 

to design, implement, and improve its statewide MEP. These student-level data are not being collected 

under EDEN/EDFacts.

Q5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 8b of IC Data 

Part 2), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

A5. Small businesses and entities are not impacted by this data collection.

Q6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted 

or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

A6. The Department would be unable to calculate State MEP allocations and to adjust allocations in 

cases where SEAs have identified high numbers of ineligible children. In addition, the Department would 

be unable to monitor adequately SEA implementation and operation of the MEP and use of Federal funds. 

Q7. Explain any special circumstance that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a 

manner:

 requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

 requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 

days after receipt of it;

 requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

 requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-inaid, or tax records for more than three years;

 in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that 

can be generalized to the universe of study;

 requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or 

regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the 

pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible 

confidential use; or

 requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the 

agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to 

the extent permitted by law.

A7. The regulations do not require the information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent 

with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

Q8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the FEDERAL 

REGISTER of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information 

collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice 

and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments 

received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of 

data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting 

format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must 

compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is 
4

the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific 

situation. These circumstances should be explained.

A8. Relative to existing §§ 200.83 and 200.84: These final regulations were first published on December 

2, 2002. No specific comments on the cost and hour burdens were received from the public when the last 

version of this information collection was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2011. In 

addition to ongoing, individualized technical assistance, OME meets annually with State Directors to 

discuss program issues. A few State Directors, whose States receive small MEP allocations, raised 

general burden concerns with the needs assessment, plan for service delivery, and program evaluation

requirements. In response to these concerns, OME developed and disseminated (in 2012) separate toolkits 

for each of the requirements- the needs assessment, plan for service delivery, and evaluation. The toolkits 

have been shared with State Directors via webinars and during the annual State Director meetings, in an 

effort to increase SEAs capacity to meet the requirements. OME and the State Directors continue to work 

collaboratively to identify solutions for carrying out these requirements in cases where SEAs have limited 

resources. 

Relative to existing § 200.88: This final regulation was first published on December 2, 2002. No specific 

comments on the cost and hour burdens were received from the public at that time or when the last 

version of this information collection was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2011 

Relative to existing § 200.89(b): This final regulation was first published on July 29, 2008. In its May 

2011 request for renewed approval of the information collection, the Department decreased the burden 

associated with 200.89(b)(1) because all States had an ED-accepted rate and no State was required to 

implement the retrospective re-interview process as a result of corrective action. The Secretary is further 

reducing the burden in 2014 because no States have been required to implement the retrospective reinterview process as a result of corrective action, and it is unlikely that as many as eight states will need 

to do so in the next three years. 

OME has discussed the requirements of 200.89(b)(2) at the annual meeting of State Directors and via 

several conference workshops. A few States have expressed concern about States’ general 

responsibilities of identifying and recruiting eligible migrant students, one of which is the prospective reinterview requirements. However, these are just a small portion of what SEAs have historically 

expended on identification and recruitment activities under the general authority of the statute and the 

general requirements for documentation and program monitoring that are in 34 CFR 76.731. To address 

concerns and to assist States in implementing 200.89(b) and (d), OME developed a technical assistance 

guide in December 2010. The guide provides SEAs with tools to facilitate the interview and analysis 

processes, templates for recording information, and strategies for decreasing travel time and costs. OME 

continues to utilize this guide in technical assistance provided to SEAs as well as responses to policy 

questions surrounding prospective re-interviews.

Relative to § 200.89(c): This final regulation was first published on July 29, 2008; OME received several 

technical comments on the format and style of the COE. In consultation with State and local MEP staff, 

OME made several editorial changes and improvements to the COE and its instructions. Since then, OME 

has discussed the requirement and use of the COE with several State Directors and with local users during 

technical assistance workshops, conference presentations, and onsite reviews.

Relative to § 200.89(d): This final regulation was first published on July 29, 2008. No specific comments 

on the cost and hour burdens were received from the public at that time or when the last version of this 

information collection was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2011. 

Q9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of 

contractors or grantees.
5

A9. The regulations do not require gifts or payments to be made to respondents. 

Q10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance 

in statute, regulations, or agency policy.

A10. The specific MEP regulations discussed in this information collection package require no assurance 

of confidentiality. However, because the COE form required under § 200.89(c) is an “educational 

record”, State and local operating agencies are required to comply with the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974. FERPA establishes when States and local operating agencies can and 

cannot disclose “educational records” without parental consent. 

Q11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and 

attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification 

should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made 

of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and 

any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

A11. The regulations do not require any questions of sensitive nature in this collection of information.

Q12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

 Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of 

how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys 

to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer 

than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary 

widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour 

burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden 

hours for customary and usual business practices.

 If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for 

each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

 Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for collections of information, 

identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside 

parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be 

included in Item 14.

A12. 

Estimated hour burden for the collection of information. 

As presented in greater detail below, we estimate that it will require 11,333 hours per State respondent 

and 2 hours per migrant parent to respond to the requirements of these regulations.

We estimate that it will require approximately 287 hours per State respondent, and 0.5 hours per migrant 

parent respondent (annually) to address the requirements of §200.89(b). We estimate that it will require 

approximately 8,823 hours per State and 1.5 hours per parent (overall) to address the requirements of 

§200.89(c). We estimate that it will require approximately 734.75 hours per State to address the 

requirements of §200.89(d).

We estimate that it will require approximately 1,044 hours per State (overall) to address the requirements 

of §200.83. We estimate that it will require approximately 440 hours per State (biennially) to address the 

requirements of §200.84. We estimate that it will require approximately 4 hours per State (on a one-time 

basis) to address the requirements of §200.88. 
6

These estimates were developed by program staff with prior experience in the State-level administration 

of the MEP. [See the tabular summaries below for a fuller explanation of the calculations.]

Summary of Total Burden Hours (Annualized)

By regulatory section/subsection Total Burden Hours (Annualized)

200.83 9,428

200.84 10,340

200.88 31

200.89 258,794

TOTAL 278,593
7

200.89(b) Frequency 

of

response

# of RespondentsAverage # of 

Hours per 

respondent

Total

Hours

Description

(1) Retrospective

Re-interviewing

Re-interviews

(record-keeping)

One Time 4

1

SEAs 1,200 4,800 Assuming an average 

sample of 300 children per

State and an average time of 

4 hours2(including multiple 

attempts) to locate, travel to 

& re-interview each child’s 

parent/guardian, including 

an average of 1⁄2 hour per 

family to conduct the reinterview per State

300 parents3

of migrant 

children per 

State = 1,200 

parents

0.5 600

Analysis & 

Reporting

(record-keeping

and reporting)

One Time 4 SEAs 380 1,520 Assuming an average 

sample of 300 children and 

1 hour per child to analyze 

eligibility findings and 80 

hours to construct the 

report.

Subtotal (1) One Time 4 SEAs 1,580 6,320 

1,200 parents 0.5 600

6,920

(2) Prospective

Re-Interviewing

Re-interviews

(record-keeping)

Annually 474SEAs 100 4,700 Assuming an average 

sample of 50 children per 

State and an average time of 

2 hours5(including multiple 

attempts) to locate, travel to 

& re-interview each child’s 

parent/guardian, including 

an average of 1⁄2 hour per 

family to conduct the re-

 

1 Because no SEAs have had to re-do the retrospective re-interview process and no SEAs have had to go through the 

process as a result of corrective action, it is unlikely that 8 states will need to do so in the next three years. As a 

result, this estimate has been reduced from 8 SEAs to four SEAs.

2 We estimate 4 hours to locate/re-interview each child retrospectively since these re-interviews will be taking place 

up to four years after the initial eligibility determination was done.

3 Assumes only 1 parent/guardian per family needs be interviewed.

4 We estimate 47 SEAs since the SEAs for Rhode Island, Connecticut, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico no longer participate in the MEP. 

5 We estimate 2 hours to locate/re-interview each child prospectively since these re-interviews will take place soon 

after the initial eligibility determination was done in any program year. 
8

50 parents of 

migrant 

children per 

State (47) = 

2,350 parents

0.50 1,175 interview per State. 

Analysis

(record-keeping)

Annually 47 SEAs 50 2,350 Assuming an average 

sample of 50 children per 

State and 1 hour per child to 

analyze eligibility findings.

Report as part of 

Consolidated 

State 

Performance 

Report6

(reporting)

Annually 47 SEAS 2 94 Assuming it will take no 

more than 2 hours per State 

to summarize the new 

findings for the report.

Subtotal (2) Annually 47 SEAs 152 7,144

2,350 parents 0.5 1,175

8,319

TOTAL for 

§200.89(b)

47 SEAs 286.47713,464

3,5508

parents

0.5 1,775

15,239

 

6 The Consolidated State Performance Report has already been cleared through 07/31/15 under OMB No. 1810-

0614. 

7 Estimated hours per SEA across all 47 SEAs – where all 47 SEAs will do the §200.89(b)(2) prospective reinterviewing annually (7,144 hours for all 47 SEAs), but only 4 SEAs will also do the §200.89(b)(1) retrospective 

re-interviewing once over the next 3 year period (6,320for all 4 SEAs). Total number of hours (7,144 + 6,320) is 

13,464. Across all 47 SEAs total is 286.47 hours per SEA. 

8 Total of 1,200 under §200.89(b)(1) + 2,350 under §200.89(b)(2) = 3,550 parents.
9

200.89(c)

Frequency 

of

response

# of 

Respondents

Average # of 

Hours per 

respondent

Total

Hours

Description

Eligibility Documentation

Conduct the 

interview 

(record-keeping)

Once per 3-

years of 

eligibility

47 SEAs 4,812.77 226,200 Assuming approximately 

377,000 children in the 47 

SEA operated States and 2.5 

children per family (and per 

COE) and 1.5 hours to 

initially locate, travel to and

conduct a 1⁄2 hour interview

150,800pare with each family.

nts9

0.5 75,400

Write up the 

COE & other 

SEA-required 

eligibility 

documentation

(record-keeping)

Once per 3-

years of 

eligibility

47 SEAS 802.13 37,700 Assuming 15 minutes per 

COE. One COE is done for 

every family (each with an 

average of 2.5 children). 

Update/Revise 

COE as 

necessary10

(record-keeping)

Twice 

within 3-

year 

eligibility 

period

47 SEAs 3,208.51 150,800 Assuming an average of 1⁄2 

hour per COE per year for 

each of two of three years.

150,800

parents

1.0 150,800

TOTAL for 

§200.89(c )

47 SEAs 8,823.41 414,700

150,800 

parents

1.5 226,200

640,905

 

9 Assumes 1 parent per family needs to be interviewed.

10 This would include the survey data required to document the temporary nature of employment under 

§200.89(a)(i).
10

200.89(d) Frequency 

of

response

# of RespondentsAverage # 

of Hours 

per 

respondent

Total

Hours

Description

Quality Control Procedures

(4) SEA/LEA 

COE reviews

(recordkeeping)

Annually 47 SEAs 534.75 25,133.33 Assuming 150,800 COEs 

(new or updated) and 10 

minutes per COE for 

review.

(6) Documentation of quality 

control 

processes and 

improvement

(recordkeeping)

Annually 47 SEAs 200 9,400 Assumes 200 hours of 

person time per year to 

prepare needed 

documentation

TOTAL for 

§200.89(d)

47 

SEAs

734.75 34,533.33
11

 

11

§ 200.83 Frequency 

of

response

# of RespondentsAverage # 

of Hours 

per 

respondent

Total

Hours

Description

Needs Assessment 

Data Collection

(recordkeeping)

One Time 47 SEAs 643.50 30,244.50 This estimate includes 

the time required to 

design and collect 

information through 

surveys of samples of 

parents, staff and LEAs 

with migrant students 

regarding migrant 

students’ needs and the 

whether other programs’ 

services are already 

available. 

Analysis & 

Reporting

(recordkeeping)

One Time 47 SEAs 160 7,520 This estimate includes 

the time for SEA staff to 

analyze the collected 

needs assessment data 

and summarize the 

results.

Plan Development11

(recordkeeping)

One Time 47 SEAs 160 7,520 This estimate consists of 

the time needed for SEA 

staff to draft, revise and 

clear a comprehensive 

service delivery plan that 

responds to the identified 

needs of students and 

coordinates services 

across the MEP and 

other available services. 

Plan Update

(recordkeeping)

Biennial 47 SEAs 80 3,760 This estimate consists of 

the time needed for SEA 

staff to update the 

comprehensive service 

delivery plan in response 

to the results of program 

evaluations.

Total for

§200.83

47 SEAs 1,043.5 49,044.5
12

§ 200.88 

Activities 

Frequency 

of

response

# of 

Respon

dents

# of Hours per 

respondent

Total

Hours

Description

Written 

determination

(recordkeeping)

Once 47

SEAs

4 188 This estimate consists of the time 

needed for SEA staff to analyze 

and prepare a written 

determination in support of 

exclusion.

Totals for 

§ 200.88

47 4 188 One-time

Estimates of annualized burden:

 Amortized over the next three years, the annual burden to address the § 200.89(b)(1) 

requirements would be 6,920 hours /3 years = 2,307 hours/year. The annual burden to 

address the § 200.89(b)(2) requirements would be 8,319 hours/year. Therefore the total 

annual burden to address the § 200.89(b) requirements would be: 2,307 + 8,319 = 10,626

hours/year.

 Amortized over the 3-year eligibility cycle, the annual burden to address the § 200.89(c) 

requirements would be 640,905/3 years = 213,635 hours/year.

 The annual burden to address the § 200.89(d) requirements would be 34,533 hours/year.

Therefore, the annual burden to address the § 200.89 requirements = 10,626+ 213,635+ 34,533 = 

258,794 hours/year.

 Amortized over the six-year ESEA authorization, the annual SEA burden to address the § 

§ 200.84 

Activities 

Frequency 

of

response

# of 

Respon

dents

# of Hours per 

respondent

Total

Hours

Description

Evaluation

Data 

Collection

(recordkeeping)

Biennial 47

SEAs

120 5,640 This estimate consists of the 

time to collect project 

observation data in a 30 

percent sample of MEP project 

sites nationally. (The estimate 

does not include the time 

associated with collecting 

student-level assessment data 

since student assessment data 

is exempt from the paperwork 

clearance process.)

Analysis & 

Reporting

(recordkeeping)

Biennial 47

SEAs

320 15,040 This estimate consists of the 

time needed for SEA staff to 

analyze and summarize the 

project and student data to 

determine the effectiveness of 

the State’s MEP program.

Total for 

§200.84

47 440 20,680 Biennially
13

200.83 "Needs Assessment" and initial "Plan Development" requirements would be: 

(30,245+ 7,520+7,520) hours / 6 years = 7,548 hours/year. Amortized over a biennial 

period, the total annual SEA burden to address the full § 200.83 "Plan Update" 

requirements would be: 3,760 hours / 2 years = 1,880 hours/year. Therefore the total 

annual burden to address the § 200.83 requirements would be: 7,548 + 1,880 = 9,428

hours/year.

 Amortized over a biennial period, the total annual burden to address the § 200.84 

requirements would be: 20,680 hours / 2 years = 10,340 hours/year.

 Amortized over the six-year ESEA authorization, the total annual burden to address the § 

200.88 requirements would be: 188 hours / 6 years = 31 hours/year.

Estimates of annualized cost to respondents:

SEA Respondents

Estimating respondent cost at an average of $10/hour for SEA staff carrying out interviews in 

§§200.89(b) and 200.89(c) and $25/ hour for other SEA staff carrying out analysis and reporting and 

§§200.89(d), 200.83, 200.84 and 200.88, the average cost per State would be:

 ($10/hour x 1,200 hours) + ($25/hour x 380 hours) = $12,000 + $9,500 = $21,500 per State to 

address § 200.89(b)(1) on a one-time basis, and $21,500/3 = $7,167 annually per State 

amortized over the next 3 years. ($10/hour x 100 hours) + ($25/hour x 52 hours) = $1,000 

+ $1,300 = $2,300 per State to address § 200.89(b)(2) annually. Therefore, the annual 

cost per SEA to address the § 200.89(b) requirements would be ($7,167 + $2,300) = 

$9,467/year for 4 States and $2,300 for 43 States. Averaged across all 47 States, the annual 

cost per SEA would be [($9,467 x 4) + ($2,300 x 43)]/47 = $2,910/year.

 [$10/hour x (4,813 + 802)/3 = $18,717] + [$10/hr. x (3209/2) = $16,045] Amortized over the 

3 year eligibility cycle, the annual cost per SEA to address the § 200.89(c) requirements 

would be $34,762/year.

 The annual cost per SEA to address the § 200.89(d) requirements would be {$25/hour x 

734.75 hours) = $18,369/year.

 With a total annual burden of 9,428 hours/year for all 47 SEAs, the annual cost per SEA to 

address the full § 200.83 requirements would be: ($25/hour x 9,428 hours) /47 SEAs = 

$5,015/year. 

 $25/hour x 440 hours = $11,000 per State to address the § 200.84 requirements (biennially). 

Amortized over a biennial period, the annual cost per SEA to address the § 200.84 

requirements would be: $11,000 / 2 years = $5,500/year.

 $25/hour x 4 hours = $100.00 per State to address the § 200.88 requirements (on a one-time 

basis). Amortized over the six year ESEA authorization, the annual cost per SEA to 

address the § 200.88 requirements would be: $100.00 / 6 years = $17/year.

Annual Total Costs

Annual total cost estimates do not include costs to the Federal government. 

 The annual total cost to address the § 200.89(b) requirements would be: $7,167/SEA x 4 

SEAs + $2,300/SEA x 47 SEAs = $136,768.
14

 The annual total cost to address the § 200.89(c) requirements would be: $34,762/SEA x 

47 SEAs = $1,633,814.

 The annual total cost to address the § 200.89(d) requirements would be $18,369/SEA x 

47 SEAs) = $863,343.

 The annual total cost to address the full § 200.83 requirements would be: ($5,015/SEA x 

47 SEAs) = $235,705/year. 

 The annual total cost to address the § 200.84 requirements would be: ($5,500/SEA x 47

SEAs) = $258,500/year.

 The annual total cost to address the § 200.88 requirements would be: $17/SEAs x 47

SEAs = $799/year.

Q13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from 

the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.)

 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component 

(annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of 

services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, 

maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to 

estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of 

capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. 

Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such 

as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and 

record storage facilities.

 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and 

explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out information collection services 

should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may 

consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public 

comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the 

rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: 

(1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated 

with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for 

the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

A13. The only costs to respondents are those shown above for staff time for data collection and reporting. 

There should be no record-keeping costs beyond those covered under customary and usual business 

practices. 

Q14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the 

method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as 

equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been 

incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 

12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
15

A14. Estimated annualized Federal cost:

Federal costs associated with this collection of information consist of staff time to monitor SEAs. 

Estimated Annualized Federal Cost of Department Monitoring

In regard to staff time for monitoring SEAs, Department staff could be expected to spend four hours 

reviewing an SEA’s retrospective re-interviewing documentation (§ 200.89(b)(1)); two hours reviewing

an SEA’s prospective re-interviewing documentation (§ 200.89(b)(2)); five hours reviewing an SEA’s 

COEs (§200.89(c)); two hours reviewing an SEA’s Quality Control system and documentation (§

200.89(d); two hours reviewing an SEA’s needs assessment and service delivery plan (§ 200.83); two 

hours reviewing a SEA's program evaluation (§ 200.84); and one-half hour reviewing SEA's written 

determinations supporting the exclusion of State or local funds from "comparability" and "supplement, 

not supplant" provisions of the statute in preparation for program monitoring (§ 200.88). 

§ 200.89(b) Activities

Re-interviewing 

documentation

Review 

Time 

Total Review 

Time

Wage Rate 

for 

Personnel12

Total 

Personnel 

Cost

Other

Costs

Total Cost 

of Review

16 SEAs13 6 hours 96 hours $47 $4,512 0.00 $4,512

§ 200.89(c ) Activities

Eligibility 

documentation

Review 

Time 

Total 

Review 

Time

Wage Rate 

for 

Personnel

Total 

Personnel 

Cost

Other

Costs

Total Cost 

of Review

16 SEAs 5 hours 80 hours $47 $3,760 0.00 $3,760

§ 200.89(d) Activities

Quality Control 

Documentation

Review 

Time 

Total 

Review 

Time

Wage Rate 

for 

Personnel

Total 

Personnel 

Cost

Other

Costs

Total Cost 

of Review

16 SEAs 2 hours 32 hours $47 $1,504 0.00 $1,504

§ 200.83 Activities

Number of 

Needs 

Assessments 

& Service 

Delivery Plans

Review Time Total 

Review 

Time

Wage Rate 

for 

Personnel

Total 

Personnel 

Cost

Other

Costs

Total Cost 

of Review

16 SEAs 2 hours 32 hours $47 $1,504 0.00 $1,504

 

§ 200.84 Activities

Number of 

Program 

Evaluations

Review Time Total 

Review 

Time

Wage Rate 

for 

Personnel

Total 

Personnel 

Cost

Other

Costs

Total Cost 

of Review

16 2 hours 32 $47 $1,504 0.00 $1,504

 

 

12

 2014 Pay rate for a GS-12/10

13 16 SEAs reflects an annualized figure – over the 3-year eligibility cycle -- of the 47 SEAs to be reviewed 
16

 

§ 200.88 Activities

Number of 

Program 

Exclusions

Review Time Total 

Review 

Time

Wage Rate 

for 

Personnel

Total 

Personnel 

Cost

Other

Costs

Total Cost 

of Review

16 SEAs .5 hours 8 hours $47 $376 0.00 $376

The total annual cost to the Federal Government for Department monitoring of SEAs is $13,160.
17

Q15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported.

A15. There is an adjustment in the total number of responses and burden. The number of responses 

decreased from 230,048 to 150,847- a difference of 79,201 responses. The number of burden hours 

decreased from 408,633 hours to 278,593- a difference of 130,040hours. The reduction in SEA burden 

and responses was achieved not as a result of deliberate Federal government action, but rather due to 

decreases in the number of eligible migratory children and decreases in the number of SEAs that the 

Department expects will be required to implement retrospective re-interviewing, as described in § 

200.89(b)(1).

Q16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and 

publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for 

the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of 

report, publication dates, and other actions.

A16. The collection of information does not require publication of the information (except for § 

200.89(b)) or use of complex analytical techniques. The defect rates reported under § 200.89(b)(1) will 

be reported by the Secretary in tabular form to the States, Congress and the public. 

The retrospective re-interviewing process required under § 200.89(b)(1), which has already been done by 

SEAs, had to be implemented once during the current period of authorization of ESEA. The prospective 

re-interviewing process under § 200.80(b)(2) must be implemented annually. Identification of eligible 

migrant children and documentation of eligibility status under § 200.89(c) is an activity carried out on an 

ongoing basis. SEAs must implement the quality control processes required under § 200.89(d) 

throughout the period of authorization of ESEA. 

The needs assessment and service delivery plan under § 200.83 needs to be implemented at least once 

during the current period of authorization for ESEA as amended. The program evaluation under § 200.84

needs to be implemented biennially during the current period of authorization for ESEA as amended. 

The SEA's advance written determination that a State or locally funded program meets the intents and 

purposes of part C of Title I under § 200.88 needs to be implemented at least once during the current 

period of authorization for ESEA as amended. . 

Q17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information 

collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

A17. ED is not seeking this approval.

Q18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 20, "Certification for 

Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

A18. Exception (i) in Item 20 – Statistical survey methodology does not apply. There are no other 

proposed exceptions to the certifications except that the Paperwork statement will not be included on the 

COE.