[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 43 (Monday, March 4, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15525-15531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04437]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0011]


Proposed Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State 
Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority 
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part 
B Data (Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.373Y. The Department may 
use this priority and these requirements for competitions in fiscal 
year (FY) 2024 and later years. We take this action to focus attention 
on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements 
under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
This Center would support States in collecting, reporting, and 
determining how to best analyze and use their data and would customize 
its TA to meet each State's specific needs.

[[Page 15526]]


DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 20, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation 
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, 
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted 
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period 
closes. To ensure the Department does 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 
``FAQ.''

    Note: The Department's policy is generally to make 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: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 245-6391. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b093238333e37373e751f3a2d32281b3e3f753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7123181219141d1d145f35100718023114155f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final priority and requirements, 
we urge you to identify clearly the specific provision of the proposed 
priority or requirement that each comment addresses.
    Directed Question: Given that Congress has not yet enacted an 
appropriation for FY 2024, the Department is still awaiting the 
finalization of its FY 2024 appropriations for IDEA, the Department is 
considering whether it may use a phased-in funding approach to this 
investment, with smaller awards in the initial years of the project and 
higher awards in later years. The Department requests specific public 
comment on the extent to which such an approach would require 
substantive changes to the proposed priority and whether there are 
particular areas of focus (e.g., data sharing templates, data analyses 
tools) that may benefit from a phased-in approach.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from the proposed priority and requirements. 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 program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, 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 the proposed priority and requirements. 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.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of 
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide 
TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet 
the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of 
IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside 
for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate 
of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review 
the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data 
and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 
of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the 
Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 
to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection 
requirements, which include the data collection and reporting 
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, gives the 
Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA 
to ``administer and carry out other services and activities to improve 
data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of 
the IDEA.'' Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, 
Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, 
Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

Proposed Priority

    This document contains one proposed priority.
    National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
    Background:
    We are proposing the same priority that we established through a 
notice of final priority published in the Federal Register on August 
12, 2019 (84 FR 39736), with three changes. First, the proposed 
priority and requirements do not contain the requirement in paragraph 
(d)(5) that the applicant demonstrate how it will ensure that it will 
recover the lesser of: (a) Its actual indirect costs as determined by 
the grantee's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with its 
cognizant Federal agency; and (b) 40 percent of its modified total 
direct cost base as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, effectively instituting an 
indirect cost cap. The Department proposes to remove and has not 
included this indirect cost cap in the proposed priority because we 
found that it led to a decrease in the number of applicants, which 
limited competition. Further, the purpose of the indirect cost cap was 
to maximize the amount of grant funds used to provide TA to States to 
improve their capacity to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting 
requirements. However, we found that was not the case, because the 
indirect cost cap did not result in a decrease in the amount of 
indirect costs charged, and was thus not needed. Second, expected 
outcome (e) in the proposed priority and requirements has been edited 
to include ``parents and families'' in the parenthetical providing 
examples of local consumers. The Department proposes to include this 
language in recognition that families

[[Page 15527]]

may also be local consumers of data. Third, paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(F) of 
the application and administrative requirements in the proposed 
priority and requirements has been edited to include a parenthetical 
providing examples of the Department-funded TA projects with whom this 
Center will be expected to coordinate and collaborate. The Department 
proposes to include this parenthetical in order to highlight the 
Department-funded TA centers which also provide TA on the IDEA data.
    The Department reviewed the data collection and analysis capacity 
of States to ensure that IDEA data are being collected and accurately 
reported to the Department and the public. Specifically, the Office of 
Special Education Programs (OSEP) reviewed and analyzed information 
from multiple sources, including data quality reviews conducted by OSEP 
to evaluate the accuracy of section 618 data, Department-developed edit 
check reports, written and oral communication with States through the 
data quality process, and State-initiated requests for TA. The 
Department's assessment is that States have varying needs for TA to 
improve their IDEA data collection capacity and their ability to ensure 
IDEA data are accurate and can be reported to the Department and the 
public. States also need ongoing TA to help them improve their capacity 
to analyze and use IDEA data so they can provide more accurate 
information about their efforts to improve implementation of IDEA and 
more accurately target future improvement activities in their State 
Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted as part of their State 
Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/APRs).
    The ongoing need for TA to improve State data collection and 
analysis capacity is compounded by the increased turnover in State IDEA 
Part B Data Managers (data managers). Since 2019, half of the States 
and entities required to submit IDEA section 618 data have experienced 
the turnover of at least one data manager, with one State experiencing 
six new data managers during this time. In all, 50 new data managers 
have begun since 2019. This consistent turnover in data managers 
heightens the need for continued TA to support both new and experienced 
data managers as they work to collect, report, analyze, and use 
accurate IDEA data.
    To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA data by States, OSEP proposes a 
priority to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
    Proposed Priority:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance 
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 
Accurate IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).
    The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current 
and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements, 
improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and 
other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and 
address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. This Data 
Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, 
and using Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. However, the Data Center 
will not provide TA on Part B data required under section 616 of IDEA 
for Indicators B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12 (Early Childhood 
Transition); TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part B 
data associated with children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 for 
these indicators will be provided by the National IDEA Technical 
Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and 
promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among 
relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs), 
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality 
of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
    (b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely 
data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent 
future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
    (c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and 
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing 
personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training 
modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes), 
and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State 
collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that 
States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and 
districts;
    (d) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs in collaboration with SEAs, 
to collect, report, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to 
identify programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root 
causes of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress 
towards outcomes;
    (e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data 
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate 
tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the 
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to 
communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents and 
families, school boards, the general public); and
    (f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B data.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this proposed priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements in this proposed priority, 
which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their 
capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as both a 
means of improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths 
and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant 
must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting 
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems, 
as appropriate;
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to 
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and 
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and
    (iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B 
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and 
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--

[[Page 15528]]

    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes, which 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;

    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

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

    \1\ For purposes of these requirements,``evidence-based 
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings 
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention 
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report 
and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as both a 
means of improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for 
improvement; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on 
the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection 
and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections 
616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and 
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\2\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA 
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\3\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach; and
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their 
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build 
capacity at the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\4\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA 
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as 
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, 
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or 
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA personnel 
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA 
levels;
    (C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a 
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data 
quality issues, as measured by OSEP's review of the quality of the IDEA 
sections 616 and 618 data;
    (D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction 
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems related to the IDEA 
Part B data collection and reporting requirements that include 
professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching;
    (E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and 
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and 
that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs 
and LEAs to meet Part B data collection and reporting requirements 
under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
    (F) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded TA investments (e.g., the Center funded under 
84.373Z, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center for the 
Integration of IDEA Data, the Data Center to Address Significant 
Disproportionality, and the Weiss Center) and Institute of Education 
Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research and 
development investments, where appropriate, in order to align 
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and 
services to meet the purposes of this priority; and
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and

[[Page 15529]]

implemented by a third-party evaluator.\5\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application and 
administrative requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the APR and at the end of 
Year 2 for the review process; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are 
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements:
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality 
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
    (6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
targeted and intensive TA to States.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority and Requirements

    We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and 
requirements after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the

[[Page 15530]]

Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing 
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection 
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use this proposed priority and one or more of 
these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create 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 for which centralized review 
would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically 
authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each 
case.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. 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.'' OIRA has emphasized 
that these techniques may include ``identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the proposed priority and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. 
In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

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 the proposed priority 
and requirements easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    <bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed priority and 
requirements clearly stated?
    <bullet> Do the proposed priority and requirements contain 
technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
    <bullet> Does the format of the proposed priority and requirements 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) 
aid or reduce their clarity?
    <bullet> Would the proposed priority and requirements be easier to 
understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
    <bullet> Could the description of the proposed priority and 
requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble 
be more helpful in making the proposed priority and requirements easier 
to understand? If so, how?
    <bullet> What else could we do to make the proposed priority and 
requirements easier to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make the 
proposed priority and requirements easier to understand, see the 
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
    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.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that the proposed priority and requirements would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under 
State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; 
private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying 
areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant

[[Page 15531]]

by the proposed priority and requirements would be limited to paperwork 
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of the 
proposed priority and requirements would outweigh any costs incurred by 
the applicants.
    Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority and 
requirements would impose no burden on small entities unless they 
applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining 
whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection 
program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of 
preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them 
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical 
Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity 
probably would apply only if it determines that the likely benefits 
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priority and requirements would not 
impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant 
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That 
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the 
absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to 
prepare an application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priority and requirements contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028. The proposed priority and requirements do not affect 
the currently approved data collection.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access 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.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-04437 Filed 3-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>