FR Doc E7-1177
[Federal Register: January 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3697-3703]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ja07-16]
[[Page 3697]]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 76
State-Administered Programs; Final Rule
[[Page 3698]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 76
RIN 1890-AA13
State-Administered Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations in 34 CFR part 76
governing State reporting requirements. These final regulations require
States to submit their performance reports, financial reports, and any
other required reports, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary,
including through electronic submission, if the Secretary has obtained
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Failure to submit such reports
in the manner prescribed by the Secretary constitutes a failure, under
section 454 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1234c,
to comply substantially with a requirement of law applicable to the
funds made available under the program for which the reports are
submitted. If the Secretary chooses to require submission of
information electronically, the Secretary may establish a transition
period during which a State would not be required to submit such
information electronically in the format prescribed by the Secretary,
if the State meets certain requirements.
DATES: These regulations are effective February 26, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Sherrill, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6C103, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 708-8196 or via Internet: pat.sherrill@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 27, 2006, the Secretary published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (71 FR
24824).
In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 24826
to 24828 the major changes proposed to the current regulations. These
changes are summarized as follows:
Under proposed Sec. 76.720(c)(1), States would have to
comply with the Secretary's requirements concerning the manner in which
reports are submitted to the Department.
Under proposed Sec. 76.720(c)(2), failure by a State to
submit reports in the manner prescribed by the Secretary would
constitute a failure, under section 454 of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234c), to comply substantially with a
requirement of law applicable to the Department's programs.
Under proposed Sec. 76.720(c)(3), which applies to
reports that the Secretary requires to be submitted electronically, the
Secretary would have the discretion to establish a transition period of
up to two years during which a State would not be required to submit
information electronically in the format prescribed by the Secretary if
the State submits to the Secretary (a) evidence satisfactory to the
Secretary that the State is unable to comply, (b) the information
requested in the report, through an alternative means deemed acceptable
by the Secretary, and (c) a plan showing how the State would come into
compliance with the data submission requirements specified in the data
collection instrument.
There are no differences between the NPRM and these final
regulations.
These regulations highlight that the Department may require,
through the PRA clearance process, that States report certain
information electronically and establish that the Department may take
administrative action against a State for failure to submit reports in
the manner prescribed by the Secretary. These regulations will
facilitate the use of the Department's electronic EDFacts data
management system (EDFacts).
As explained in the NPRM, States have been submitting data through
the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) voluntarily for the past two
years. EDEN has acted as the Department's central repository and
electronic data collection system for over 140 common data elements on
student achievement, school characteristics, demographics, and program
financial information. The Department is now in the process of
increasing the EDEN capabilities to include, in addition to the Web-
based interface that allows States to submit data electronically into
EDEN, a capability for States, Department staff, and, eventually, the
public, to query the database and independently analyze the data
subject to all applicable privacy protections for disclosing
statistical data. To signal the increased capabilities of the system,
the Department is renaming EDEN and the expanded Web-based interface
``EDFacts.'' Accordingly, except as otherwise noted, we will describe
the expanded system using the name ``EDFacts'' in this final rulemaking
document.
The Department has now obtained approval from OMB to require the
electronic submission of data through EDFacts. The Department published
both PRA notices for this data collection under the title ``Annual
Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data for the
Education Data Exchange Network.'' Because we have changed the name of
the Education Data Exchange Network to EDFacts, the title of the
justification for OMB Control No. 1875-0240 has been changed to
``Annual Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education
Data through EDFacts.'' We also note that some of the language in the
Supporting Statement for this collection has been changed from that
which was originally posted in the Education Department Information
Collection System (EDICS). The Department's goal in requiring
electronic submission of information, including data submitted through
EDFacts, is to reduce State-reporting burden significantly and to
streamline dozens of data collections currently required by the
Department.
Analysis of Comments
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM,
approximately 21 parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations
and the Department's plan to require States to submit data
electronically through EDFacts beginning with data from the 2006-07
school year. To the extent these comments related to specific elements
of the EDFacts data collection request (1875-0240) we have addressed
those comments as part of the PRA clearance process for EDFacts, and
have not included responses to those comments in this document. For an
analysis of those comments, you may download Attachment E ``Paperwork
Reduction Act Submission Supporting Statement--Annual Mandatory
Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data through EDFacts:
EDFacts Response to Public Comments'' at the following Web site: http://edicsweb.ed.gov/browse/downldatt.cfm?pkg_serial_num=3017
.
An analysis of the comments relating to the proposed regulations
follows.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical or minor changes, and suggested changes that we are
not authorized to make under the law.
[[Page 3699]]
Section 76.720 State Reporting Requirements Nature and Schedule of
Reports Covered by Sec. 76.720
Comment: A few commenters asked about the reports covered by these
regulations. Specifically, they asked what was meant by the phrase
``other reports by the Secretary'' in paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.
76.720. One of the commenters asked the Department to provide a list of
these proposed reports for review. A couple of commenters were
concerned about which reports might be required ``more frequently than
annually''. One commenter asked the Department to provide a ``reporting
schedule'' for review.
Discussion: We included the phrase ``other reports by the
Secretary'' in Sec. 76.720(a) to establish that the requirements
described in Sec. 76.720 apply to all State reports that are now, and
may in the future be, required by the Secretary and have been approved
by OMB under the PRA, not just those reports that are specifically
enumerated in the current regulations. The ability of the Secretary to
require reporting more frequently than annually is not a proposed
change; it can be found in current Sec. 76.720(c). See also 34 CFR
80.41(b)(3)(frequency of financial reporting). The schedule for
submitting data to EDFacts is included in the clearance package for
that data collection (1875-0240), includes proposed annual data
submission dates for each of the data groups, and has been provided to
the State data coordinators.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters requested clarification on what
constitutes the ``quality level'' expected in the submission of data
under proposed Sec. 76.720(c)(1).
Discussion: Section 76.720(c)(1) provides that States must submit
reports at the quality level specified in the data collection
instrument. Accordingly, the Department will specify in each data
collection instrument the data quality standards that are applicable to
the reports subject to the data collection instrument. Under the
Department's Information Quality Guidelines, the Department seeks to
ensure that data it disseminates to the public are accurate, reliable,
and useful. Thus, it is important for data submitted to the Department
to be complete, timely, accurate, valid, and useful.
For example, for data that would be submitted through EDFacts, the
Department expects to establish data quality standards in collaboration
with its State partners, so that the data will be helpful to the
Department, its State partners, and the public. The Department will
continue to work with States to provide them with detailed feedback
that they can use to analyze the quality of the data they submit to the
Department, and to establish mutually agreeable criteria that the
Department can use to certify the data submitted through EDFacts.
Changes: None.
Potential Penalties Under Sec. 76.720(c)(2)
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Secretary not impose
penalties under Sec. 76.720(c)(2) for failure to comply with the
reporting requirements of the proposed regulations; others supported
the ability of the Secretary to impose penalties after a reasonable
transition period. Another commenter recommended that enforcement under
Sec. 76.720(c)(2) depend on whether a State is making reasonable,
good-faith efforts to comply with the requirements. Several other
commenters asked for clarity on how the penalties would be determined,
specifically asking about when a State would be considered out of
compliance, how penalties would be calculated, and whether funds would
be withheld from administrative or program allocations, or both.
Finally, a commenter asked if States would be penalized under Sec.
76.720(c)(2) for failure of local educational agencies (LEAs) to report
directly to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department.
Discussion: As explained in the preamble to the NPRM, failure of a
recipient to comply with the Department's reporting requirements,
including submitting reports electronically, harms the Federal interest
in establishing what the Department deems is an efficient and effective
means of obtaining accurate, reliable, and valid information on the
performance of the Department's programs and the success of States in
meeting their goals under such laws as the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (Pub. L. 107-110). Thus, we determined that it was necessary to
highlight, through these regulations, the importance of the
Department's reporting requirements. Moreover, we determined that, for
the Department's reporting requirements to be meaningful, it was
essential for the Secretary to have the appropriate tools to enforce
them. That being said, the Department will consider many factors in
determining whether to impose appropriate sanctions, including whether
a State is making reasonable, good-faith efforts to comply with the
reporting requirements and, in the case of mandatory electronic
reporting, whether a State has submitted a transition plan and whether
that plan is sufficiently detailed to explain how the State would
provide the requested data within the transition period.
To be clear, the Department is not interested in penalizing States
for minor, technical infractions but is instead focused on
collaborating with States to strengthen the States' own data systems
and the use of data collected through those systems to improve
education within their States. Part of the ability to use data
effectively depends on the completeness of those data. Accordingly, the
Department will work with States to establish reasonable criteria for
what a complete submission entails.
In addition, the Department plans to continue to work closely with
States as partners in the identification, collection, and reporting of
complete, accurate, timely, and valid education information, to
minimize the need for the Department to take administrative action to
compel compliance with these regulations.
For example, with respect to EDFacts data, the Department currently
requests each State to submit an individual State data submission plan
to address the unique data submission challenges of each State data
provider. Working together with States, the Department has provided
tools to help States assess their specific challenges and to develop
individualized State data submission plans and reporting schedules for
EDFacts data. The Department also will adopt the suggestion of one
commenter that the Department conduct site visits with individual
States to determine their capacity to collect and report data, and to
develop phase-in plans and agreements for each. In all cases, the
Department is committed to providing the support that is needed to help
individual States that are making reasonable, concerted, good-faith
efforts to comply with the EDFacts data submission requirements.
Furthermore, the Department anticipates that States will vary in
their capacity to report data electronically in accordance with Sec.
76.720. For that reason, under Sec. 76.720(c)(3), States may report
data through an alternative means for up to two years following the
date the States otherwise would be required to submit the data
electronically if they meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)
through (c)(3)(iii) of Sec. 76.720. These requirements include
developing a plan for coming into compliance with the reporting
requirements within two years. The Department will work directly with
individual States to develop and implement those plans,
[[Page 3700]]
and we anticipate they will be customized to address individual State
capacities. The Department is also open to the possibility that some of
these required data might be submitted by a State to a multi-State data
repository, or ``public utility,'' maintained by, and for, the States,
provided that the data repository enters into agreements with the
participating States and the Department to ensure that data from the
repository are provided to EDFacts.
Should the Department determine that administrative action is
necessary, the Department would determine on a case-by-case basis
whether and how sanctions would be imposed by considering factors such
as the existence of an approved State data submission plan, the history
of the State's efforts to provide required data to the Department, and
evidence of a State's progress in improving its education data systems.
For example, the Department may decide to commence action to withhold
administrative funds from a State if the Department determines that the
State was not making reasonable and good-faith efforts to implement a
transition plan under Sec. 76.720(c)(3)(iii) to submit reports
electronically.
Finally, under 34 CFR 76.500, States and their subgrantees are
responsible for compliance with the civil rights statutes and
regulations enforced by OCR, including the obligation to provide civil
rights data when requested by OCR. As part of its data collection
activities, OCR has been collecting data both from States, and directly
from LEAs. The Department cannot specially alter or suspend the civil
rights responsibilities of States or LEAs during the migration of the
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) into EDFacts. During the migration
process, when data are requested from an LEA, the primary focus of
OCR's efforts will continue to be on the LEA's obligation to submit the
required data. Virtually all of the LEAs participating in the 2006 CRDC
have notified the Department that they are planning to provide their
data submissions electronically. However, LEAs submitting CRDC data to
the Department will continue to have the option of electing other
formats, including paper forms.
Changes: None.
Transition Period for Mandatory Electronic Submission Requirements
Under Sec. 76.720(c)(3)
Comment: Six commenters expressed support for the two-year
transition period described in Sec. 76.720(c)(3). One commenter noted
that a longer transition period would only serve to delay the presence
of a fully populated data repository and would, therefore, result in
the continued practice of duplicative data collections. Many other
commenters questioned whether the two-year transition period was a
sufficient amount of time for States to establish the data systems
needed to supply the reliable and quality data that are being requested
for the EDFacts data collection. Commenters suggested alternatives,
ranging from two to five years, because of issues such as the need to
obtain legislative approval within their States.
Discussion: The Department appreciates that many States will find
it challenging to make the needed changes to their data systems to be
able to report their data to the Department electronically for any
collection of data. The Department recognizes that any automated
information system will require some significant work to modify it for
the collection, storage, protection, and reporting of any data that
were previously uncollected. For this reason, the Department has
determined that it is appropriate for the Secretary to have the
discretion to establish a transition period of up to two years during
which a State would not be required to submit information
electronically in the format prescribed by the Secretary, if the State
meets certain requirements. Because the need for good data is so
important, the Department believes that the two-year transition period
is reasonable.
The two-year transition period applies to the EDFacts data
collection. Thus, if a State is not able to submit all of the required
data electronically to EDFacts by the specified reporting deadline, the
State must submit to the Secretary, in accordance with Sec.
76.720(c)(3), evidence that the State cannot comply with the electronic
submission reporting requirement, the information requested in the
report through an alternative means acceptable to the Secretary, and a
plan for submitting the reports in the required electronic manner no
later than two years after the reporting deadline.
We recognize that States may need guidance in developing their
plans under Sec. 76.520(c)(3)(iii) with respect to the EDFACTS data
collection. To address that need, we included in our EDFACTS data
collection submission to OMB proposed guidance to States on when the
Department would expect States to be able to submit certain data
elements electronically to EDFACTS. The guidance, for example,
identifies those EDFACTS data groups that the Department believes all
States should have the capability to submit electronically to EDFACTS
for the 2006-2007 school year. If a State cannot submit all of those
data groups electronically for the 2006-2007 award year, the State
would provide the Secretary with evidence about which data groups it
could not submit electronically for the 2006-2007 award year and
propose a transition plan. Under the transition plan, the State would
submit those data groups that could be provided electronically to
EDFACTS for the 2006-2007 school year and would provide all other
required data elements to the Department through an alternative means
in accordance with Sec. 76.720(c)(3)(ii). The State would include in
its transition plan information on when, within the two year transition
period, it would submit the other data elements electronically through
EDFACTS. We are providing as guidance information about when the
Department would expect States to be able to provide data
electronically through EDFACTS; States may need to structure their
transition plans differently depending on their capacities. In all
cases, however, we will work cooperatively with States to provide them
support in their efforts to comply with the EDFACTS data collection
requests.
Changes: None.
Comment: Most commenters cited scarce State resources as the reason
the two-year transition period in Sec. 76.720 was inadequate. Several
commenters stated that to comply with the proposed regulations they
would need to restructure their current data systems and, thus, would
require more financial and human resources. One commenter estimated
that it would need 4 years and $840,000 to comply with the reporting
requirements in the EDFACTS data collection. Many commenters stated
that States would need more staff to prepare and report data to
EDFACTS. Several commenters suggested that the Federal Government
provide the funding for additional staff to lead the data collection
and reporting effort, explaining that the work needed at least one
full-time-equivalent position similar to the position funded by the
National Center for Education Statistics to manage data for the
National Assessment of Educational Progress. One commenter suggested
that the responsibilities of such a position include submitting and
maintaining the data submission plan, managing and submitting files,
reviewing and commenting on future changes, and using EDFACTS for
reporting to management.
Discussion: Over the last two fiscal years, the Congress has
appropriated nearly $50 million to assist States in developing State
Longitudinal Data Systems. The Department is continuing
[[Page 3701]]
to explore ways to increase funding, and expand State access to these
funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One State recommended that the two-year transition period
be understood as a minimum period of time during which States can
obtain the first data set on any new variable. Another State noted that
forcing States to report data before they have a complete data set
could result in inaccurate data being reported.
Discussion: These regulations address only the submission of data
in the form and format required by the Secretary and not the process by
which States obtain or collect data to be reported to the Department.
Whether specific data are available and the cost of acquiring or
collecting those data are matters that are best addressed in the PRA
public comment and clearance process for each information collection
package. That being noted, the Department's goal continues to be to
obtain accurate, reliable, and useful data from States, in order to
monitor and evaluate the States' performance and use of Department
funds.
Changes: None.
General Comments
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that they do not
currently collect some of the data requested through EDFACTS and that,
therefore, it would be unfair to penalize them for not having the data
or to require them to establish new data collection efforts.
Discussion: As part of the public comment period required under the
PRA, States have been given the opportunity to identify any problems
they expect to have in supplying the data required under the EDFACTS
data collection (1875-0240). The Department has invited comment
multiple times on exactly which data elements are not available from
the States. The Department has also invited States to provide this
information as part of one of the two public comment periods under the
PRA for the most recent request for collection of EDFACTS data, or as
part of the ongoing work with the States to implement EDFACTS. As noted
elsewhere in this section, every effort will be made in the EDFACTS
collection to require only those data that are needed by the Department
in order to monitor and evaluate a State's performance in using funds
awarded by the Department.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the
consolidated, mandatory collection of data through EDFACTS would not
eliminate the numerous, redundant program collections currently
required of States. One commenter suggested that the Department ought
to provide a timeframe in which each data collection is to be
eliminated. Several others suggested that, once data are available to
the Department through EDFACTS, the Department take swift action to
require program offices to cease collecting similar data though other
means and set a clear schedule with specific dates for when each data
collection is to be eliminated. If not, one commenter warned,
participation in EDFACTS might not be worth the effort for States.
Several commenters noted that there is no language in the regulations
to make the use of EDFACTS mandatory for program offices within the
Department, and that they are concerned that if this is not explicit
within the regulations, program offices may continue to require their
own reports.
Discussion: The Department's goal is to eliminate duplicative
reporting and, accordingly, the Department is working to ensure that as
many of its program offices as possible use EDFacts. In the future, if
a program office sends forward a proposal to request data through a
program-specific data collection, and those data are already being
collected through EDFacts, the Secretary will, through the internal and
PRA clearance processes, deny approval for such duplicate collections.
However, if any duplicative data elements should slip through the
clearance processes, States can alert the Secretary through the public
comment period under the PRA, ensuring that redundant data collections
are eliminated.
Changes: None.
Comment: There were several requests by commenters for the
Department to explain the rationale for certain data elements and for a
clear indication of what data elements are going to be eliminated now
and in the future. Some States said that they do not collect or use
some of the proposed data elements and that reporting those data will
create extra burden. Some commenters said that States want a
comprehensive data map or crosswalk for each and every data element
that corresponds to the Federal law that authorizes its collection, the
current Department collection forms that collect it, and the actual
Federal use of the data, so that they can see that coordination exists
between the efforts to collect data through EDFacts and the efforts of
the Department's program staff to collect data outside the EDFacts
context. One commenter noted that program staff and EDFacts staff
frequently send mixed messages about which data are required to be
submitted.
Discussion: The Department will continue to use the clearance
process under the PRA to analyze the national costs and benefits of
each data element it requires. Proposed data collections will face a
rigorous internal clearance process at the Department before being
added to an EDFacts collection--and then phased in, if necessary. The
Department asks States to inform it of any and every Department program
office message that may seem to be ``at odds'' with what has been
written here, so that it can improve its communication with the public
about data collection. To help prevent these mixed messages, the
Department has convened a cross-program committee composed of many
senior Department program managers to discuss shared data definitions
and data usage and to ensure internal agency collaboration.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if it could submit school and district
data, and have the Department aggregate those data to the State level,
rather than submitting all three levels of data.
Discussion: EDFacts has the technical capacity to aggregate school
data to the district level and district data to the State level. The
Department has not done this yet because it is concerned that some data
might be missed in the aggregation process. The Department will work
with any State that agrees to certify that the school-level data that
it submits through EDFacts is complete in all cells and that the
aggregations of those cells produce complete data at the district and
State levels. The Department is willing to make available the State
data aggregation option and allow States to submit only school-level
data.
Changes: None.
Section 76.722 Subgrantee Reporting Requirements
Comment: None.
Discussion: Current Sec. 76.722 provides that ``[a] State may
require a subgrantee to furnish reports that the State needs to carry
out its responsibilities under the program.'' In the NPRM, we proposed
to amend Sec. 76.722 slightly in order to make that provision
consistent with the language in proposed Sec. 76.720, which requires
States to submit reports ``in a manner prescribed by the Secretary.''
Thus, proposed Sec. 76.722 provides that ``[a] State may require a
subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the
State * * *.'' Upon intradepartmental review of the language in
proposed Sec. 76.722, we thought it prudent to clarify that we do
[[Page 3702]]
not intend for this language to grant to States any authority that they
do not already have to collect information from LEAs to help States
carry out their responsibilities under the Department's programs. That
is, a State may only require its LEAs to submit reports in a particular
manner or format if that State has the requisite authority to do so
under its State laws and regulations. In implementing proposed Sec.
76.722, the Department expects that each State will take into account
the capacity of their LEAs to submit reports in the manner and format
determined appropriate by the State.
Changes: None.
Executive Order 12866
We have reviewed these final regulations in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, the Secretary 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 $100 million
or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ``economically significant'' rule); (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts
of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive order. The Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the final regulations are those
we have determined to be necessary for administering the requirements
of the Department's State-administered programs effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these final regulations, we have determined that
the benefits of the regulations justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
We summarized the potential costs and benefits of these final
regulations in the preamble to the NPRM (71 FR 24828). We include
additional discussion of potential costs and benefits in the section of
this preamble titled Analysis of Comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The paperwork burden in Sec. 76.720(c)(3)(iii) is approved under
the PRA as part of the burden in the Annual Mandatory Collection of
Elementary and Secondary Education Data for EDFacts (1875-0240).
Intergovernmental Review
These regulations affect State-administered programs of the
Department that are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive order is
to foster an intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism
by relying on processes developed by State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, and on the private sector. These final regulations do not
impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector, within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 76
Elementary and secondary education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 22, 2007.
Margaret Spellings,
Secretary of Education.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends part 76
of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 76--STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 76 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 76.720 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.720 State reporting requirements.
(a) This section applies to a State's reports required under 34 CFR
80.40 (Monitoring and reporting of program performance) and 34 CFR
80.41 (Financial reporting), and other reports required by the
Secretary and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
(b) A State must submit these reports annually unless--
(1) The Secretary allows less frequent reporting; or
(2) The Secretary requires a State to report more frequently than
annually, including reporting under 34 CFR 80.12 (Special grant or
subgrant conditions for ``high-risk'' grantees) or 34 CFR 80.20
(Standards for financial management systems).
(c)(1) A State must submit these reports in the manner prescribed
by the
[[Page 3703]]
Secretary, including submitting any of these reports electronically and
at the quality level specified in the data collection instrument.
(2) Failure by a State to submit reports in accordance with
paragraph (c)(1) of this section constitutes a failure, under section
454 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, to comply
substantially with a requirement of law applicable to the funds made
available under that program.
(3) For reports that the Secretary requires to be submitted in an
electronic manner, the Secretary may establish a transition period of
up to two years following the date the State otherwise would be
required to report the data in the electronic manner, during which time
a State will not be required to comply with that specific electronic
submission requirement, if the State submits to the Secretary--
(i) Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that the State will not
be able to comply with the electronic submission requirement specified
by the Secretary in the data collection instrument on the first date
the State otherwise would be required to report the data
electronically;
(ii) Information requested in the report through an alternative
means that is acceptable to the Secretary, such as through an
alternative electronic means; and
(iii) A plan for submitting the reports in the required electronic
manner and at the level of quality specified in the data collection
instrument no later than the date two years after the first date the
State otherwise would be required to report the data in the electronic
manner prescribed by the Secretary.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474)
0
3. Section 76.722 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.722 Subgrantee reporting requirements.
A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and
format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under
34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the
program.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474)
[FR Doc. E7-1177 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P