4000-01-U
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0011]
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:
SUMMARY:

Final priority and requirements.
The Department of Education (Department)

announces 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
(Data Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program.

The Department may use this priority

and one or more of 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 will support States in collecting,

reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use
their data and will customize its TA to meet each State’s
specific needs.

DATES:

The priority and requirements are effective [INSERT

DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richelle Davis, U.S.

Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, room
4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Email:

Telephone:

(202) 245-6391.

Richelle.Davis@ed.gov.

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:
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 Secretary

may use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to
“administer and carry out other services and activities to
improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use
under parts B and C of the IDEA.”

Further Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Division D,
Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Assistance Listing Number (ALN):
Program Authority:

84.373Y.

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.

We published a notice of proposed priority and
requirements (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register
on March 4, 2024 (89 FR 15525).

That document contained

background information and our reasons for proposing the
priority and requirements.

Public Comment:

In response to our invitation in the NPP,

nine parties submitted comments addressing the priority and
requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us
to make under the applicable statutory authority.

In

addition, we do not address general comments that raised
concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and
requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:

An analysis of the

comments and of any changes in the priority and
requirements since publication of the NPP follows.

We

received comments on a number of specific topics, including
funding and topics for TA.
Comments:

Each topic is addressed below.

Multiple commenters specifically expressed

support for the proposed center and the proposed
objectives.
Discussion:

The Department appreciates the comments and

agrees with the commenters that the Center funded under
this program will provide necessary and valuable TA under
the IDEA to States.
Changes:
Comments:

None.
One commenter proposed a shift towards a more

participatory approach to data collection under the IDEA,
an approach that would consider the voices and experiences
of diverse stakeholders.

Discussion:

The Department appreciates the commenter’s

suggestion and shares their interest in obtaining broad and
diverse input regarding the IDEA data collection process.
Ultimately, the Department is required to collect these
data under section 618 of IDEA.

Thus, the participatory

data collection methods that the commenter suggested, such
as community forums, focus groups, and surveys designed to
capture the perspectives and needs of diverse stakeholders,
may be helpful as State educational agencies (SEAs)
implement their IDEA data collection responsibilities, but
are not applicable at this time when the Department’s data
collection is defined by the IDEA statute.
Changes:

None.

Comments:

In response to the Department’s request for

comment on whether it should utilize a phased-in approach
for funding this Center, such that the award amount for the
initial years of the project would be lower than the later
years, the majority of commenters expressed concerns.
Commenters specifically noted concerns about the funding
level given the turnover and shortages on data staff faced
by SEAs and need for the TA the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) data centers provide to new data staff, as
well as the impact decreased TA would have on data quality.
Discussion:

The Department agrees that SEAs are facing

significant issues related to shortages and turnover of
their data staff.

The Department also agrees that a

substantial decrease in funding for TA could impact data
quality.

For this reason, the Department intends to limit

any phased-in funding, with smaller awards in the initial
years of the project and higher awards in later years (to
the extent appropriations under IDEA by Congress permit
this flexibility) and still maintain the proposed outcomes
and activities.
Changes:

None.

Comments:

One commenter recommended including specific

reference to artificial intelligence (AI) within the
administrative requirements, as it is an increasingly
important technology in this field.
Discussion:

While we appreciate the commenter’s interest

in, and support of, AI for the data collection, reporting,
and use of IDEA section 618 data, the Department will
consider whether and how AI should be incorporated into the
TA on data collection when the Department develops the
cooperative agreement and during the implementation of the
grant.
Changes:

None.

Comments:

One commenter proposed adding specific outcomes

that support data integration efforts across State agencies
and federally funded pre-kindergarten through age 21
education programs that would improve States’ capacity to
use data for programming decisions.
Discussion:

The Department appreciates and agrees with the

need to support and increase data integration across State
agencies.

The Department funds the Center on the

Integration of IDEA Data (CIID) to specifically support
States on how to integrate and better use their Federal
data, with a specific focus on the IDEA data (ALN 84.373M).
Under the requirements within the priority, applicants must
describe how they would collaborate and coordinate with
other Department-funded TA investments, such as CIID, to
align their work to better meet the purposes of the Center.
In order to decrease confusion in the field and the
potential overlap of this TA center and CIID, the
Department declines to add an additional outcome related to
State-level data integration.
Changes:

None.

FINAL PRIORITY:
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State
Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA
Part B Data.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative
agreement to establish and operate the National Technical
Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect,
Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 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.
The Data Center will provide TA to help States to (1)
effectively and efficiently respond to all IDEA-related
data submission requirements; (2) improve the analyses of
IDEA data to the extent these analyses respond to critical
policy questions that will facilitate program improvement
and compliance accountability; and (3) comply with
applicable privacy requirements, including the privacy and
confidentiality requirements under IDEA and the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and
its regulations at 34 CFR part 99.1
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

The Center must review the need for additional resources (with input
from the Department) and disseminate existing resources developed by
the Department, such as: (1) IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk (Surprenant &
Miller, August 24, 2022); and (2) Data sharing agreement template (at
https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-moutemplate/.

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.
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)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing
additional priorities or requirements, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note:

This document does not solicit applications.

In any

year in which we choose to use this priority and these
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in
the Federal Register.
FINAL REQUIREMENTS
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following
requirements for this program.

We may apply one or more of

these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Requirements:
Applicants must-(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-(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)
outcomes.

Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended
To meet this requirement, the applicant must

provide-(i)
(ii)

Measurable intended project outcomes; and
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/202112/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-

areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptualframework.
(4)

Be based on current research and make use of

evidence-based practices (EBPs).2

To meet this requirement,

the applicant must describe-(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;

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.

(ii)

Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,3

which must identify the intended recipients, including the
type and number of recipients, that will receive the
products and services under this approach;
(iii)

Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized

TA,4 which must identify-(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,5 which must identify--

“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.
4 “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.
5 “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

(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 the Office of Special Education Programs’ (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

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.

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
implemented by a third-party evaluator.6

The evaluation

plan must-(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

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.

timeline must indicate that the data will be available
annually for the annual performance report 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 costeffectiveness, 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, easily accessible, 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.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) must determine 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 3 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 stated in the
Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final 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).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major
rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action
under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866.

To the extent permitted by law,

Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency-(1)

Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned

determination that their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify);
(2)

Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden

on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives
and taking into account--among other things and to the
extent practicable--the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3)

In choosing among alternative regulatory

approaches, select those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity);
(4)

To the extent feasible, specify performance

objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of
compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5)

Identify and assess available alternatives to

direct regulation, including economic incentives--such as
user fees or marketable permits--to encourage the desired
behavior, or provide information that enables the public to
make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use
the best available techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
possible.”

The Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may
include “identifying changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.”
We are issuing the final priority and requirements
only on a reasoned determination that their benefits
justify the costs.

In choosing among alternative

regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits.

Based on the analysis that follows,

the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action
does 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.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action
does not impose significant costs on eligible entities,
whose participation in this program is voluntary.

While

this action does impose some requirements on participating
grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects that
applicants for this program will include in their proposed
budgets a request for funds to support compliance with such
cost-bearing requirements.

Therefore, costs associated

with meeting these requirements are, in the Department’s
estimation, minimal.
The Department believes that the benefits to the
Federal Government outweigh the costs associated with this
action.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority and
requirements are needed to administer the program
effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority, including requirements, contains
information collection requirements that are approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the final priority,
including requirements, does not affect the currently
approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification:

The Secretary

certifies that this final regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The small entities that this final regulatory action
will 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 this final priority, including requirements,
will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of this final priority
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection program is voluntary.

For this reason, the

final priority and requirements 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 will 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 will most likely apply

only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the
costs of preparing an application.
We believe that the final priority and requirements
will 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
this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare
an application will likely be the same.
This final regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a small entity once it
receives a grant because it will be able to meet the costs
of compliance using the funds provided under this program.
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.
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

requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an
MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or
other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:

The official version

of this document is the document published in the Federal

Register.

You may access the official edition of the

Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov.

At this site you can view this document,

as well as all other Department documents published in the
Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format
(PDF).

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader,

which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in
the Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov.

Specifically, through the

advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your
search to documents published by the Department.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-15051 Filed: 7/5/2024 11:15 am; Publication Date: 7/9/2024]