```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6915-6922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0144]

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

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority 
for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C 
Fiscal Data Center (Fiscal Data Center) under the Technical Assistance 
on State Data Collection program. The Department may use this priority 
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 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 
fiscal data collection requirements under Part B and Part C of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Fiscal Data 
Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining 
how to best analyze and use their IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data to 
establish and meet high expectations for each child with a disability 
and will customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 7, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However,

[[Page 6916]]

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: Charles D. Kniseley, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0907. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
    A brief summary of the rule is available at www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2024-OSERS-0144.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect 
in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the 
specific section of the proposed priority that each comment addresses.
    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. 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 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. 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 authorized under section 616(i), where needed, to improve 
the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting 
requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the 
Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for 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 sections 616 and 642 of IDEA 
are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It 
also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which 
include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 
and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Further Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, gives the Secretary authority to use 
funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to ``administer and carry 
out other services and activities to improve data collection, 
coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.'' 
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    Assistance Listing Number: 84.373F.
    OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 
Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
    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 and Part C 
Fiscal Data.

Background

    Collecting, analyzing, and using valid and reliable IDEA fiscal 
data are critical for States to be able to ensure that funds made 
available to support programs for infants, toddlers, children, and 
youth with disabilities are used consistent with requirements and to 
implement effective programs that improve outcomes for infants, 
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. However, the 
Department's review and analysis of State-submitted fiscal data show 
that States are not meeting all fiscal requirements or effectively 
using their data to understand how to meet the requirements, thereby 
impacting program effectiveness and outcomes. For example, State-
submitted data regarding local educational agency (LEA) maintenance of 
effort (MOE) and coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) for 
school year 2021-2022 indicate that 239 LEAs across 20 States failed to 
maintain effort, with approximately 28 percent of those failures 
occurring in public charter schools that are LEAs. The data also show 
that States made repayment for only 26 of those LEA MOE shortfalls at 
the time States submitted their data to the Department. Assisting 
States in understanding and analyzing why LEAs, including public 
charter schools that are LEAs, are failing LEA MOE, and the factors 
contributing to delays in State repayments for MOE failures, has high-
stakes implications for IDEA implementation, including ensuring that 
children with disabilities who attend public charter schools that are 
LEAs have sufficient resources to receive a free appropriate public 
education.
    Changes to Federal fiscal requirements that impact the fiscal data 
States must submit to the Department require States to build their 
capacity to submit valid and reliable fiscal data. Starting in FY 2024, 
State lead agencies (LAs) for Part C are now reporting the data 
submission related to LAs' use of subgrants.\1\ LAs have demonstrated

[[Page 6917]]

confusion in determining whether or not they are subgranting and need 
to understand what these data represent as well as the underlying 
requirements when subgranting Federal funds, including the cross-
cutting Federal fiscal requirements and related responsibilities that 
apply both to the LA as a pass-through entity and to its early 
intervention services (EIS) providers and programs as subgrantees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ten States indicated that they are currently subgranting 
IDEA Part C funds. It should be noted that subgranting of IDEA Part 
C funds was first permitted in the FY 2021 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act (HR 133), and is now supported by revisions to 34 
CFR 76.50 of the Education Department General Administrative 
Regulations (EDGAR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes within a State, such as the methods by which State and 
local special education and early intervention funding is calculated 
and distributed, can also impact its ability to submit accurate and 
valid fiscal data. As an example, when a State changes its special 
education funding formula from a per capita amount of State aid based 
on the number of children with disabilities in an LEA to a weighted 
formula that provides variable funding based on children within each of 
IDEA's 13 disability categories, the change potentially affects 
calculations of both State maintenance of financial support (MFS) and 
LEA MOE as well as a State's and LEAs' ability to meet MFS and LEA MOE 
respectively.
    When States change LAs or shift LA responsibility under IDEA Part C 
to reorganize their early childhood programs and create offices that 
serve children birth to five,\2\ this can also impact how fiscal data 
are collected, analyzed, and used. These types of organizational 
changes result in modifications to early intervention methods of 
establishing financial responsibility, consistent with 34 CFR 303.511, 
and often have implications for the LA's use of IDEA Part C funds and 
the methodology for determining indirect costs. There may also be the 
challenge of having new, inexperienced staff collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting IDEA Part C fiscal data in the new LA or office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Since FY 2021, 11 States have changed lead agencies, with a 
number moving to newly created early learning agencies serving birth 
to five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even in States that have not reorganized their SEA or LA, the high 
rate of turnover among State staff responsible for implementing IDEA in 
some States is an ongoing challenge that creates a continuing need for 
supporting States' ability to accurately collect, report, analyze, and 
use fiscal data. In 2023, 23 percent of State Directors of Special 
Education, who are responsible for implementing IDEA Part B 
requirements including fiscal requirements, left their positions, and 
38 percent of State Directors of Special Education had fewer than two 
years of experience in their roles that year.\3\ Similar leadership 
trends can be found in Part C LAs. In 2023, 49 percent of Part C 
Coordinators, who are responsible for implementing IDEA Part C, 
including fiscal requirements and providing information related to 
their program's intended use of funds in the IDEA Part C grant 
application, had two years or less of experience in the position. In 
that same year, 74 percent of Part C Coordinators reported having five 
years or less experience.\4\ The impacts of staff turnover on SEA and 
LA fiscal performance and data reporting can potentially include the 
loss of knowledge related to fiscal requirements; loss of institutional 
knowledge related to State policies, procedures, and practices; and 
costs associated with recruiting and training new staff.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Center for Systemic Improvement. (2024). State 
special education director snapshot: Trends in turnover and tenure. 
https://ncsi.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NCSI-Leadership-Turnover-ADA-FINAL.pdf.
    \4\ IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. (2024). 
2023 Tipping points survey: Demographics, challenges, and 
opportunities. www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2023-Tipping-Points-Survey.pdf.
    \5\ Research shows that the impact of staff turnover and 
inexperience on organizational performance is more pronounced in 
situations where staff are required to work on difficult tasks that 
require specialized skills. Meier, K. J., & Hicklin, A. (2008). 
Employee turnover and organizational performance: Testing a 
hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public 
Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 18(4), 573-590. 
www.jstor.org/stable/25096385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The situations identified above highlight States' need for support 
in building the knowledge and expertise to help ensure compliance with 
IDEA's fiscal data requirements and to use the results to identify 
issues and improve State systems. Lack of staff knowledge and expertise 
may contribute to inaccurate reporting of IDEA fiscal data by a State, 
which may lead to noncompliance with IDEA fiscal requirements and 
potential monetary consequences, including the recovery of funds.
    The Department has found that because of the complex nature of, and 
high-stakes need for meeting, IDEA fiscal requirements, SEA and LA 
staff request and readily take advantage of targeted and intensive TA 
activities, such as expert-led communities of practice and hands-on 
workshops, including workshops devoted to the development of IDEA 
fiscal policies and procedures operationalizing State practices, to 
build their capacity to address fiscal system needs.
    To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA fiscal data by States; to ensure 
States have access to TA, including fiscal tools tailored to their 
individual circumstances; and to support them in collecting and 
reporting complex IDEA fiscal data to improve IDEA programs, the 
Department 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 and Part C Fiscal 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 and Part C Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data Center).
    The Fiscal Data Center will provide TA to improve the capacity of 
States to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection 
requirements under IDEA sections 618 and 642 and increase States' 
knowledge of the underlying IDEA fiscal requirements and calculations 
necessary to submit valid and reliable data for the following 
collections: (1) MFS in Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State 
Application; (2) LEA MOE Reduction and CEIS; (3) Description of Use of 
IDEA Part B Section 611 Funds reserved for State administration and 
other State-level activities in Section III of the IDEA Part B Annual 
State Application; (4) Description of Use of Federal IDEA Part C Funds 
for the LA and the Interagency Coordinating Council in Section III of 
the IDEA Part C Annual State Application; (5) IDEA Part C MOE 
requirements; (6) Restricted Indirect Cost Rate/Cost Allocation Plan 
Information in Sections III and IV of the IDEA Part C Annual State 
Application; and (7) Part C Subgranting, in Section III.F. of the Part 
C Annual State Application.
    The Fiscal Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, 
the following expected outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and 
use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data;
    (b) Increased capacity of States to accurately perform calculations 
related to IDEA Part B and Part C statutory and regulatory fiscal 
requirements, and submit valid and reliable fiscal data under IDEA Part 
B and Part C;

[[Page 6918]]

    (c) Improved State fiscal infrastructure to communicate and 
coordinate effective IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collections and 
reporting strategies among relevant State offices, including SEAs, LAs 
and other State agencies, LEAs, schools, public charter schools that 
are LEAs, and EIS programs or providers;
    (d) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely IDEA 
Part B and Part C fiscal data, and enhance State validation procedures 
to prevent errors in State-reported IDEA data;
    (e) Increased capacity of States to train personnel to meet the 
IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting 
requirements under sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA; and
    (f) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to work with LEAs, including 
public charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs or providers to 
analyze and use IDEA fiscal data to identify issues and address those 
issues through monitoring, TA, and partner involvement.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address the current and emerging needs of States and local 
systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B 
and Part C fiscal data. To meet this requirement, the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of how SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public 
charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs and providers are 
meeting IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting 
requirements and the underlying statutory and regulatory fiscal 
requirements, as well as knowledge of State and local data collection 
systems, as appropriate; and
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to show the 
current capacity needs of SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public charter 
schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs and providers to meet IDEA Part 
B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting requirements; and
    (2) Improve how SEAs and LAs use IDEA section 618 fiscal data as a 
means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic 
strengths and areas for improvement, and indicate the likely magnitude 
or importance of the improvements.
    (b) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (2) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following website provides more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/central/Resource/100644.
    (3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \6\ 
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based'' means 
the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong 
evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that 
demonstrates a rationale (as such terms are defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs, LEAs, including 
public charter schools that are LEAs, LAs, and EIS providers to report 
and use IDEA Part B and Part C data submitted under section 616 and 
section 618, as a means of both improving data quality and identifying 
strengths and areas for improvement; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to expand the knowledge base on--
    (A) Fiscal data management and data system integration needed for 
IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and reporting;
    (B) IDEA fiscal data validation that leads to improvements in the 
validity and reliability of fiscal data required by IDEA; and
    (C) Effective ways to communicate fiscal data to local consumers 
(e.g., parents, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, 
EIS programs or providers, the general public);
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\7\ which must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services;
    (B) The products and services that the project proposes to make 
available;
    (C) The development and maintenance of a high-quality website, with 
an easy-to-navigate design, that meets or exceeds government- or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
    (D) The expected reach and impact of universal, general TA;
    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\8\ which 
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``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;
    (B) The products and services that the project proposes to make 
available; and
    (C) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, including, at a minimum, an 
assessment of potential recipients' current infrastructure, available 
resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\9\ which 
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``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.

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

[[Page 6919]]

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that 
will receive the products and services;
    (B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges 
reporting high-quality IDEA fiscal data to the Department and the 
public, which should, at a minimum, include providing virtual and on-
site consultation to the SEA or LA to--
    (1) Implement model practices for the management of IDEA data and 
data system integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities 
within the State;
    (2) Develop, use, or adapt tools to meet State-specific IDEA data 
needs;
    (3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the 
management of IDEA data and data system integration work in the future; 
and
    (4) Implement a cybersecurity plan to ensure a secure IDEA fiscal 
data system;
    (C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs and LAs 
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the State and 
local levels;
    (D) Its proposed plan to prioritize States with the greatest need 
for intensive TA to receive products and services;
    (E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and LAs to build or 
enhance training systems that include professional development based on 
adult learning principles and coaching;
    (F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, LAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, 
including public charter schools that are LEAs, local EIS programs and 
providers, and families) to ensure that there is communication between 
each level and that there are systems in place to support the 
collection, reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA fiscal 
data as well as IDEA fiscal data management and data system 
integration; and
    (G) The expected impact of intensive, sustained TA; and
    (v) How the proposed project will intentionally engage families of 
children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities--including 
underserved families \10\ and individuals--in the development, 
implementation, and evaluation of its products and services across all 
levels of TA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For the purposes of this priority, ``underserved families'' 
refers to foster, kinship, migrant, technologically unconnected, and 
military- or veteran-connected families; and families of color, 
living in poverty, without documentation of immigration status, 
experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, or impacted by the 
justice system, including the juvenile justice system. Underserved 
families also refers to families that include: members of a 
federally or State recognized Indian Tribe; English learners; adults 
who experience a disability; members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+); adults in 
need of improving their basic skills or with limited literacy; and 
disconnected adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration, including the process by which 
the proposed project will collaborate with Department-funded centers 
(including privacy TA centers such as the DaSy Center that provides 
Department-funded TA on early childhood data privacy, and the Privacy 
Technical Assistance Center) and other federally funded TA centers to 
develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a 
State; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources, such 
as non-Federal funds and in-kind contributions, to achieve the intended 
project outcomes; and
    (6) Systematically disseminate information, products, and services 
to varied intended audiences. To address this requirement the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) The variety of dissemination strategies the project will use 
throughout the five years of the project to promote awareness and use 
of its products and services;
    (ii) How the project will tailor dissemination strategies across 
all planned levels of TA to ensure that products and services reach 
intended recipients, and those recipients can access and use those 
products and services;
    (iii) How the project's dissemination plan is connected to the 
proposed outcomes of the project; and
    (iv) How the project will evaluate and correct all digital products 
and external communications to ensure they meet or exceed government or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation or other evidence-building,'' describe how the 
project will develop an evaluation plan in consultation with, and to be 
implemented by, a third-party evaluator.\11\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 must be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of these application and 
administrative requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. In measuring progress of implementation across all levels of 
TA, the plan must include criteria for determining the extent to which 
the project's products and services reached intended recipients; data, 
including feedback from recipients, on how recipients used the products 
and services; and the impact of the products and services. The plan 
must also specify sources for data, and measures and instruments 
appropriate to the evaluation questions, including information on 
reliability and validity of the measures and associated instruments 
where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the Annual Performance 
Report and at the end of Year 2; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources and quality of the project personnel,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of

[[Page 6920]]

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;
    (4) The proposed project will have processes, resources, and funds 
in place to provide equitable access for project staff, contractors, 
and partners, who require digital accessibility accommodations; \12\ 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For information about digital accessibility and 
accessibility standards from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 
visit https://sites.ed.gov/idea/topic-areas/#Accessibility-Creating-Content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
    (e) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,''--
    (1) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Allocations of key project personnel and any consultants and 
subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate 
to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products 
and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) How 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. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 
project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of 
the project period.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the 
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused 
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget 
period; and
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing 
targeted and intensive TA to States; and
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new 
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

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

    We will announce the final priority in a document in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering public 
comments on the proposed priority and other information available to 
the 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, 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 a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set 
forth in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

[[Page 6921]]

    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.'' 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 the proposed priority 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, territorial, 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 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed priority clearly 
stated?
     Does the proposed priority contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with its clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed priority (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its 
clarity?
     Would the proposed priority be easier to understand if we 
divided it into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed priority in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed priority easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed priority easier 
to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make the 
proposed priority 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 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 by the proposed priority would be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the 
benefits of the proposed priority 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 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 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 contains information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028. The 
proposed priority does 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 in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the

[[Page 6922]]

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 Department documents published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you 
must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
    You may also access Department documents published in the Federal 
Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2025-00985 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```