90 FR 120 pgs. 26926-26931 - 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
Type: RULEVolume: 90Number: 120Pages: 26926 - 26931
Pages: 26926, 26927, 26928, 26929, 26930, 26931Docket number: [Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0144]
FR document: [FR Doc. 2025-11599 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
Agency: Education Department
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
[top]
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:
Final priority.
SUMMARY:
The Department of Education (Department) announces the priority for the 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. This priority replaces the priority published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2014, and the priority published on June 16, 2020. We will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a Center 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:
The priority is effective July 25, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles D. Kniseley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A127, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6313. Email: Charles.Kniseley@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 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.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442, 1482; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6915). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the priority.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priority (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document. The most significant change, as discussed below, is the removal of the requirement that the Center specifically engage underserved families to support the development of products and services.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, three parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priority. We received two additional comments unrelated to the priority.
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.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
[top] Comments: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed Center, and one specifically referenced the benefits that members of its association have received from the current Center and agreed with the priority's support to States. Further, the commentor identified the need for the Center due to changes related to Federal fiscal requirements that impact the
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide necessary and valuable TA to States to improve the capacity of States to meet their IDEA fiscal data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements.
Changes: None.
Individuals To Be Served
Comments: One commenter indicated that the proposed Center should serve all constituents fairly, as opposed to focusing on a target population.
Discussion: The Department agrees that the proposed Center should focus on providing services to all States and that TA should focus on meeting the needs of all constituents in the State.
Changes: The Department has clarified that the Center should focus on meeting the needs of all constituents in a State by removing the requirement that the Center specifically engage underserved families to support the development of products and services.
Alignment With Selection Criteria
Comment: None.
Discussion: In using this priority in a notice inviting applications, the priority's reference to selection criteria should align with the selection criteria being used.
Changes: We are revising the selection criteria headings with the priority by removing "Quality of project services" and "Quality of the project personnel" and replacing with "Quality of the project design" and just "Adequacy of resources." We are also revising application and administrative requirements to align with the actual factors being used under "Adequacy of resources" and "Quality of the management plan" in the notice inviting applications.
Final Priority
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data.
Priority
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 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) Maintenance of State Financial Support (MFS) in Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State Application; (2) Local Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (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 Lead Agency (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;
(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 State educational agencies (SEAs), LAs and other State agencies, LEAs, schools, public charter schools that are LEAs, and early intervention services (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 program 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 the project design," 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;
[top] (2) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts,
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based? 1 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe-
Footnotes:
1 ?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 for States 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, 2 which must describe-
Footnotes:
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.
(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, 3 which must describe-
Footnotes:
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;
(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, 4 which must describe-
Footnotes:
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 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 in the development, implementation, and evaluation of its products and services across all levels of TA;
(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
[top] (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. 5 The evaluation plan must-
Footnotes:
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, or 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 in 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," how-
(1) The project will make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities;
(2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities;
(3) The proposed project will have processes, resources, and funds in place to provide access for project staff, contractors, and partners, who require digital accessibility accommodations;? 6 and
Footnotes:
6 ?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.
(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.
(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 key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(4) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(5) How the proposed project will benefit from a variety 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 Program (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
[top] (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
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, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
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 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 entitlement 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.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order. 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).
Since this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an "Executive Order 14192 regulatory action."
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 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 these benefits to the Federal government outweigh the costs associated with this action.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority contains information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028. The final priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.
[top] Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority imposes 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 apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.
We believe that the final priority 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 would likely be the same.
This final regulatory action would 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.
Diana Diaz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2025-11599 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P