Proposed Priority and Requirements-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, 15525-15531 [2024-04437]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
61. On page 89244, the third column,
the entry for 1.45V–6(c)(5) is corrected
to read, ‘‘Example 5: Retrofit of an
existing facility (80/20 Rule) and
coordination with section 45Q credit
previously allowed.’’.
■
§ 1.45V–1
[Corrected]
62. On page 89245, the second
column, the third line of paragraph
(a)(7)(iii) is corrected to read, ‘‘addition
to the production of qualified clean’’.
■ 63. On page 89245, the third column,
in the eleventh and twelfth lines of
paragraph (a)(7)(iv) remove the language
‘‘the regulations in this part under
section 45V’’ and add in its place the
language ‘‘the section 45V regulations’’.
■ 64. On page 89246, the first column,
the second and third lines of paragraph
(9)(i)(A) are corrected to read, ‘‘section
638(1) of the Code) or a U.S. territory,
which, for purposes of’’.
■ 65. On page 89246, first column, in
the fourth and fifth lines of paragraph
(a)(9)(i)(A) remove the language ‘‘the
regulations in this part under section
45V’’ and add in its place the language
‘‘the section 45V regulations’’.
■
§ 1.45V–2
[Corrected]
66. On page 89246, the third column,
the sixth line from the bottom of
paragraph (a) is corrected to read, ‘‘Rule
is satisfied will not be treated as’’.
■ 67. On page 89246, the third column,
the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1)
is corrected to read, ‘‘A purpose of
section 45V and the regulations under
section 45V (and so much of sections
6417 and 6418 and the regulations
thereunder related to the section 45V
credit) is to provide taxpayers an
incentive to produce qualified clean
hydrogen for a productive use.’’.
■ 68. On page 89246, the third column,
in the second and third lines from the
bottom of paragraph (b)(1) remove the
language ‘‘regulations in this part under
section 45V of the Code’’ and add in its
place the language ‘‘section 45V
regulations’’.
■ 69. On page 89247, the first column,
the fourth line from the bottom of
paragraph (b)(2)(i) is corrected to read,
‘‘of the section 45V credit by claiming’’.
■ 70. On page 89247, the first column,
the second line from the bottom of
paragraph (b)(2)(i) is corrected to read,
‘‘credit through an election under’’.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 1.45V–4
[Corrected]
71. On page 89248, the first column,
the fifth line from the top of paragraph
(c)(3) is corrected to read, ‘‘the DOE’s
analytical assessment of the’’.
■ 72. On page 89248, the first column,
the second line from the bottom of
paragraph (c)(3) is corrected to read,
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
‘‘Clean Hydrogen Production Credit, or
any successor form(s), to’’.
■ 73. On page 89248, the first column,
the sixth and seventh lines of paragraph
(c)(4) are corrected to read, ‘‘be deemed
accepted. A taxpayer may rely upon an
emissions value’’.
■ 74. On page 89248, the first column,
in the second and third lines from the
bottom of paragraph (c)(5), remove the
language ‘‘regulations in this part under
section 45V’’ and add in its place the
language ‘‘section 45V regulations’’.
■ 75. On page 89248, the second
column, the heading of paragraph (d) is
corrected to read, ‘‘Use of energy
attribute certificates (EACs)– ‘‘.
■ 76. On page 89248, the second
column, the seventh and eighth lines of
paragraph (d)(1) are corrected to read,
‘‘Secretary determines a PER for
hydrogen produced at’’.
■ 77. On page 89248, the third column,
the twelfth line of paragraph (d)(1) is
corrected to read, ‘‘electricity used to
produce hydrogen’’.
■ 78. On page 89249, the second
column, fifth line from the bottom of
paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C) is corrected to
read, ‘‘megawatt hours (MWh) (2 MW’’.
■ 79. On page 89249, the second
column, the second line from the
bottom of paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C) is
corrected to read, ‘‘hour of Power
Plant’s production’’.
§ 1.45V–5
[Corrected]
80. On page 89250, the second
column, the first line of paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) is corrected to read, ‘‘The
qualified verifier has not been a’’.
■
§ 1.45V–6
[Corrected]
81. On page 89251, the second
column, the heading of paragraph (b) is
corrected to read, ‘‘Retrofit of an
existing facility (80/20 Rule).
■ 82. On page 89252, the first column,
the eighteenth and nineteenth lines of
paragraph (c)(3)(i) are corrected to read,
‘‘respect to the new CCE located at
Facility Y.’’.
■ 83. On page 89252, the first column,
the heading of paragraph (c)(4) is
corrected to read ‘‘Example 4: Retrofit of
an existing facilit (80/20 Rule)—’’.
■ 84. On page 89252, the first column,
the heading of paragraph (c)(5) is
corrected to read, ‘‘Example 5: Retrofit
of an existing facility (80/20 Rule) and
coordination with section 45Q credit
previously allowed—’’.
■
§ 1.48–15
[Corrected]
85. On page 89252, the third column,
the fourth line from the bottom of
paragraph (d)(2) is corrected to read,
‘‘successor form(s), with its
partnership’’.
■
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15525
86. On page 89254, the first and
second columns, in paragraph (f)(5)(i)
the language ‘‘0.44kg/CO2e’’ is corrected
to read, ‘‘0.44kg of CO2e’’, wherever it
appears.
■ 87. On page 89254, the first and
second columns, in paragraph (f)(5)(i)
the language ‘‘1.4kg/CO2e’’ is corrected
to read, ‘‘1.4kg of CO2e’’, wherever it
appears.
■ On page 89254, the second column,
the fifth line of paragraph (f)(5)(ii) is
corrected to read, ‘‘0.44kg of CO2e per
kilogram of hydrogen, which is the rate
specified’’.
■ 88. On page 89254, the third column,
the sixth line from the bottom of
paragraph (g) is corrected to read,
‘‘definition of a specified clean’’.
■
Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Section Chief, Publications and Regulations
Section, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure
and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2024–04304 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED–2024–OSERS–0011]
Proposed Priority and Requirements—
Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection—National Technical
Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze,
and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority and
requirements.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) proposes a priority and
requirements for a National Technical
Assistance Center to Improve State
Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze,
and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data
(Center) under the Technical Assistance
on State Data Collection program,
Assistance Listing Number (ALN)
84.373Y. The Department may use this
priority and these requirements for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024
and later years. We take this action to
focus attention on an identified national
need to provide technical assistance
(TA) to improve the capacity of States
to meet the data collection requirements
under Part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This
Center would support States in
collecting, reporting, and determining
how to best analyze and use their data
and would customize its TA to meet
each State’s specific needs.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
15526
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
We must receive your comments
on or before May 20, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be
submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However,
if you require an accommodation or
cannot otherwise submit your
comments via www.regulations.gov,
please contact the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department
will not accept comments submitted by
fax or by email, or comments submitted
after the comment period closes. To
ensure the Department does not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your
comments only once. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘FAQ.’’
DATES:
Note: The Department’s policy is generally
to make comments received from members of
the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in
their comments only information that they
wish to make publicly available.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 245–6391. Email:
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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding the
proposed priority and requirements. To
ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the final
priority and requirements, we urge you
to identify clearly the specific provision
of the proposed priority or requirement
that each comment addresses.
Directed Question: Given that
Congress has not yet enacted an
appropriation for FY 2024, the
Department is still awaiting the
finalization of its FY 2024
appropriations for IDEA, the
Department is considering whether it
may use a phased-in funding approach
to this investment, with smaller awards
in the initial years of the project and
higher awards in later years. The
Department requests specific public
comment on the extent to which such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
an approach would require substantive
changes to the proposed priority and
whether there are particular areas of
focus (e.g., data sharing templates, data
analyses tools) that may benefit from a
phased-in approach.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders
12866, 13563, and 14094 and their
overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
the proposed priority and requirements.
Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect public comments about
the proposed priority and requirements
by accessing Regulations.gov. To inspect
comments in person, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for the proposed priority and
requirements. If you want to schedule
an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program is to improve the
capacity of States to meet IDEA data
collection and reporting requirements.
Funding for the program is authorized
under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which
gives the Secretary authority to reserve
not more than one-half of one percent of
the amounts appropriated under Part B
for each fiscal year to provide TA
activities, where needed, to improve the
capacity of States to meet the data
collection and reporting requirements
under Parts B and C of IDEA. The
maximum amount the Secretary may
reserve under this set-aside for any
fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively
adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section
616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to
review the data collection and analysis
capacity of States to ensure that data
and information determined necessary
for implementation of section 616 of
IDEA are collected, analyzed, and
accurately reported to the Secretary. It
also requires the Secretary to provide
TA, where needed, to improve the
capacity of States to meet the data
collection requirements, which include
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the data collection and reporting
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law
117–328, gives the Secretary authority
to use funds reserved under section
611(c) of IDEA to ‘‘administer and carry
out other services and activities to
improve data collection, coordination,
quality, and use under Parts B and C of
the IDEA.’’ Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2023, Public Law 117–328,
Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459,
4891 (2022).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c),
1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442;
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,
Public Law 117–328, Division H, Title
III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR 300.702.
Proposed Priority
This document contains one proposed
priority.
National Technical Assistance Center
to Improve State Capacity to Collect,
Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate
IDEA Part B Data.
Background:
We are proposing the same priority
that we established through a notice of
final priority published in the Federal
Register on August 12, 2019 (84 FR
39736), with three changes. First, the
proposed priority and requirements do
not contain the requirement in
paragraph (d)(5) that the applicant
demonstrate how it will ensure that it
will recover the lesser of: (a) Its actual
indirect costs as determined by the
grantee’s negotiated indirect cost rate
agreement with its cognizant Federal
agency; and (b) 40 percent of its
modified total direct cost base as
defined in 2 CFR 200.1, effectively
instituting an indirect cost cap. The
Department proposes to remove and has
not included this indirect cost cap in
the proposed priority because we found
that it led to a decrease in the number
of applicants, which limited
competition. Further, the purpose of the
indirect cost cap was to maximize the
amount of grant funds used to provide
TA to States to improve their capacity
to meet the IDEA data collection and
reporting requirements. However, we
found that was not the case, because the
indirect cost cap did not result in a
decrease in the amount of indirect costs
charged, and was thus not needed.
Second, expected outcome (e) in the
proposed priority and requirements has
been edited to include ‘‘parents and
families’’ in the parenthetical providing
examples of local consumers. The
Department proposes to include this
language in recognition that families
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
may also be local consumers of data.
Third, paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(F) of the
application and administrative
requirements in the proposed priority
and requirements has been edited to
include a parenthetical providing
examples of the Department-funded TA
projects with whom this Center will be
expected to coordinate and collaborate.
The Department proposes to include
this parenthetical in order to highlight
the Department-funded TA centers
which also provide TA on the IDEA
data.
The Department reviewed the data
collection and analysis capacity of
States to ensure that IDEA data are being
collected and accurately reported to the
Department and the public. Specifically,
the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) reviewed and
analyzed information from multiple
sources, including data quality reviews
conducted by OSEP to evaluate the
accuracy of section 618 data,
Department-developed edit check
reports, written and oral communication
with States through the data quality
process, and State-initiated requests for
TA. The Department’s assessment is that
States have varying needs for TA to
improve their IDEA data collection
capacity and their ability to ensure
IDEA data are accurate and can be
reported to the Department and the
public. States also need ongoing TA to
help them improve their capacity to
analyze and use IDEA data so they can
provide more accurate information
about their efforts to improve
implementation of IDEA and more
accurately target future improvement
activities in their State Systemic
Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted as
part of their State Performance Plans/
Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/
APRs).
The ongoing need for TA to improve
State data collection and analysis
capacity is compounded by the
increased turnover in State IDEA Part B
Data Managers (data managers). Since
2019, half of the States and entities
required to submit IDEA section 618
data have experienced the turnover of at
least one data manager, with one State
experiencing six new data managers
during this time. In all, 50 new data
managers have begun since 2019. This
consistent turnover in data managers
heightens the need for continued TA to
support both new and experienced data
managers as they work to collect, report,
analyze, and use accurate IDEA data.
To meet the array of complex
challenges regarding the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA
data by States, OSEP proposes a priority
to establish and operate the National
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report,
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B
Data.
Proposed Priority:
The purpose of this proposed priority
is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate the National
Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report,
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B
Data (Data Center).
The Data Center will provide TA to
help States better meet current and
future IDEA Part B data collection and
reporting requirements, improve data
quality, and analyze and use section
616, section 618, and other IDEA data
(e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA)
to identify and address programmatic
strengths and areas for improvement.
This Data Center will focus on
providing TA on collecting, reporting,
analyzing, and using Part B data on
children with disabilities ages 3 through
21 required under sections 616 and 618
of IDEA. However, the Data Center will
not provide TA on Part B data required
under section 616 of IDEA for Indicators
B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12 (Early
Childhood Transition); TA on
collecting, reporting, analyzing, and
using Part B data associated with
children with disabilities ages 3 through
5 for these indicators will be provided
by the National IDEA Technical
Assistance Center on Early Childhood
Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z.
The Center must achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Improved State data infrastructure
by coordinating and promoting
communication and effective data
governance strategies among relevant
State offices, including State
educational agencies (SEAs), local
educational agencies (LEAs), and
schools to improve the quality of IDEA
data required under sections 616 and
618 of IDEA;
(b) Increased capacity of States to
submit accurate and timely data, to
enhance current State validation
procedures, and to prevent future errors
in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
(c) Improved capacity of States to
meet the data collection and reporting
requirements under sections 616 and
618 of IDEA by addressing personnel
training needs, developing effective
tools (e.g., training modules) and
resources (e.g., documentation of State
data processes), and providing in-person
and virtual opportunities for cross-State
collaboration about data collection and
reporting requirements that States can
use to train personnel in schools,
programs, agencies, and districts;
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15527
(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 highquality IDEA Part B data.
In addition to these programmatic
requirements, to be considered for
funding under this proposed priority,
applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this
proposed priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed
project will—
(1) Address the capacity needs of
SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting
requirements and to increase their
capacity to analyze and use section 616
and section 618 data as both a means of
improving data quality and identifying
programmatic strengths and areas for
improvement. To meet this requirement
the applicant must—
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current
educational issues and policy initiatives
about IDEA Part B data collection and
reporting requirements and knowledge
of State and local data collection
systems, as appropriate;
(ii) Present applicable national, State,
and local data to demonstrate the
capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to
meet IDEA Part B data collection and
reporting requirements and use section
616 and section 618 data as a means of
both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and
areas for improvement; and
(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are
currently meeting IDEA Part B data
collection and reporting requirements
and use section 616 and section 618
data as a means of both improving data
quality and identifying programmatic
strengths and areas for improvement.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the
proposed project will—
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
15528
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment
for members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented
based on race, color, national origin,
gender, age, or disability. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
describe how it will—
(i) Identify the needs of the intended
recipients for TA and information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services
meet the needs of the intended
recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and
intended outcomes. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
provide—
(i) Measurable intended project
outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which
the proposed project will achieve its
intended outcomes, which depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, outputs,
and intended outcomes of the proposed
project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and
provide a copy in Appendix A) to
develop project plans and activities,
describing any underlying concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or
theories, as well as the presumed
relationships or linkages among these
variables, and any empirical support for
this framework;
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: The following websites provide more
information on logic models and conceptual
frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/
sites/default/files/2021-12/Conceptual
Framework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideas
thatwork.org/resources-grantees/programareas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-andconceptual-framework.
(4) Be based on current research and
make use of evidence-based practices
(EBPs).1 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
1 For purposes of these requirements,‘‘evidencebased 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
requirement, the applicant must
describe—
(i) How it proposes to identify and
develop the knowledge base on the
capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to
meet IDEA Part B data collection and
reporting requirements and SEA and
LEA analysis and use of sections 616
and 618 data as a means of both
improving data quality and identifying
programmatic strengths and areas for
improvement;
(ii) Its proposed approach to
universal, general TA,2 which must
identify the intended recipients,
including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products
and services under this approach;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted,
specialized TA,3 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,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;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure
the readiness of SEA personnel to work
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 onetime, 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.
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 laborintensive 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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with the project, including their
commitment to the initiative, alignment
of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and
ability to build capacity at the SEA and
LEA levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to
prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of
States with known ongoing data quality
issues, as measured by OSEP’s review of
the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and
618 data;
(D) Its proposed plan for assisting
SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction with
SEAs) to build or enhance training
systems related to the IDEA Part B data
collection and reporting requirements
that include professional development
based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(E) Its proposed plan for working with
appropriate levels of the education
system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA
providers, LEAs, schools, and families)
to ensure that there is communication
between each level and that there are
systems in place to support the capacity
needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet Part B
data collection and reporting
requirements under sections 616 and
618 of the IDEA; and
(F) Its proposed plan for collaborating
and coordinating with Departmentfunded 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
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
implemented by a third-party
evaluator.5 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 timeline must indicate that the data
will be available annually for the APR
and at the end of Year 2 for the review
process; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each
budget year to cover the costs of
developing or refining the evaluation
plan in consultation with a third-party
evaluator, as well as the costs associated
with the implementation of the
evaluation plan by the third-party
evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Adequacy of resources and quality of
project personnel,’’ how—
(1) The proposed project will
encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of
groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color,
national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project
personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications
and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the
project’s intended outcomes;
5A
‘‘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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
(3) The applicant and any key
partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable
in relation to the anticipated results and
benefits, and funds will be spent in a
way that increases their efficiency and
cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better
outcomes.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Quality of the management plan,’’
how—
(1) The proposed management plan
will ensure that the project’s intended
outcomes will be achieved on time and
within budget. To address this
requirement, the applicant must
describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for
key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for
accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any
consultants and subcontractors will be
allocated to the project and how these
allocations are appropriate and adequate
to achieve the project’s intended
outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan
will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality,
relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit
from a diversity of perspectives,
including those of families, educators,
TA providers, researchers, and policy
makers, among others, in its
development and operation.
(f) Address the following application
requirements:
(1) Include, in Appendix A,
personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the
management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance
at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off
meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt
of the award, and an annual planning
meeting in Washington, DC, with the
OSEP project officer and other relevant
staff during each subsequent year of the
project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the
award, a post-award teleconference must be
held between the OSEP project officer and
the grantee’s project director or other
authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project
directors’ conference in Washington,
DC, during each year of the project
period; and
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to
attend Department briefings,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15529
Department-sponsored conferences, and
other meetings, as requested by OSEP;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item
for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of
the grant amount to support emerging
needs that are consistent with the
proposed project’s intended outcomes,
as those needs are identified in
consultation with, and approved by, the
OSEP project officer. With approval
from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining
funds from this annual set-aside no later
than the end of the third quarter of each
budget period;
(4) Provide an assurance that it will
maintain a high-quality website, with an
easy-to-navigate design, that meets
government or industry-recognized
standards for accessibility;
(5) Include, in Appendix A, an
assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and
products and to maintain the continuity
of services to States during the
transition to this new award period and
at the end of this award period, as
appropriate; and
(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the
grant award for providing targeted and
intensive TA to States.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority and Requirements
We will announce the final priority
and requirements in a document in the
Federal Register. We will determine the
final priority and requirements after
considering responses to this document
and other information available to the
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
15530
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Department. This document does not
preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use this proposed priority and one or more
of these requirements, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094, defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that
may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the
Administrator of Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for
changes in gross domestic product); or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President’s
priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the
Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094.
We have also reviewed this proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ OIRA has
emphasized that these techniques may
include ‘‘identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.’’
We are issuing the proposed priority
and requirements only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would
justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that would
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the
Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Language in Government Writing’’
require each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on
how to make the proposed priority and
requirements easier to understand,
including answers to questions such as
the following:
• Are the requirements in the
proposed priority and requirements
clearly stated?
• Do the proposed priority and
requirements contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their
clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed
priority and requirements (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their
clarity?
• Would the proposed priority and
requirements be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter)
sections?
• Could the description of the
proposed priority and requirements in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed priority and
requirements easier to understand? If so,
how?
• What else could we do to make the
proposed priority and requirements
easier to understand?
To send any comments about how the
Department could make the proposed
priority and requirements easier to
understand, see the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification: The Secretary certifies that
the proposed priority and requirements
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that this proposed
regulatory action would affect are LEAs,
including charter schools that operate as
LEAs under State law; institutions of
higher education; other public agencies;
private nonprofit organizations; freely
associated States and outlying areas;
Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations;
and for-profit organizations. We believe
that the costs imposed on an applicant
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules
by the proposed priority and
requirements would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing
an application and that the benefits of
the proposed priority and requirements
would outweigh any costs incurred by
the applicants.
Participation in the Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason,
the proposed priority and requirements
would impose no burden on small
entities unless they applied for funding
under the program. We expect that in
determining whether to apply for
Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program funds, an eligible
entity would evaluate the requirements
of preparing an application and any
associated costs and weigh them against
the benefits likely to be achieved by
receiving a Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program grant. An
eligible entity probably would apply
only if it determines that the likely
benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application.
We believe that the proposed priority
and requirements would not impose any
additional burden on a small entity
applying for a grant than the entity
would face in the absence of the
proposed action. That is, the length of
the applications those entities would
submit in the absence of the proposed
regulatory action and the time needed to
prepare an application would likely be
the same.
This proposed regulatory action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives
a grant because it would be able to meet
the costs of compliance using the funds
provided under this program. We invite
comments from eligible small entities as
to whether they believe this proposed
regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them
and, if so, request evidence to support
that belief.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed priority and
requirements contain information
collection requirements that are
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1820–0028. The proposed
priority and requirements do not affect
the currently approved data collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document and a copy of the
application package in an accessible
format. The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024–04437 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 42
[Docket No. PTO–P–2020–0060]
RIN 0651–AD50
Motion To Amend Practice and
Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under
the America Invents Act Before the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (Office or USPTO)
proposes to update its rules governing
amendment practice in trial proceedings
under the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act (AIA) to make permanent certain
provisions of the Office’s motion to
amend pilot program (MTA pilot
program) and to revise the rules that
allocate burdens of persuasion in
connection with motions to amend
(MTAs). The Office proposes to revise
its rules of practice to provide for
issuance of preliminary guidance in
response to an MTA and to provide a
patent owner with the option for filing
SUMMARY:
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
one additional revised MTA. Further,
the Office proposes to revise the rules to
clarify that a preponderance of evidence
standard applies to any new ground of
unpatentability raised by the Board and
to clarify that when exercising the
discretion to grant or deny an MTA or
to raise a new ground of unpatentability,
the Board may consider all evidence of
record in the proceeding, including
evidence identified through a prior art
search conducted by the Office at the
Board’s request and added to the record.
These rules better ensure the Office’s
role of issuing robust and reliable
patents, and the predictability and
certainty of post-grant trial proceedings
before the Board. These changes would
apply to the existing consolidated set of
rules relating to the Office trial practice
for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant
review (PGR), and derivation
proceedings that implemented
provisions of the AIA providing for
trials before the Office.
To ensure consideration,
commenters must submit written
comments on or before May 3, 2024.
DATES:
For reasons of government
efficiency, comments must be submitted
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov. To
submit comments via the portal, enter
docket number PTO–P–2020–0060 on
the home page and select ‘‘search.’’ The
site will provide a search results page
listing all documents associated with
this docket. Find a reference to this
proposed rulemaking and select the
‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the required
fields, and enter or attach your
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in ADOBE®
portable document format or
MICROSOFT WORD® format. Because
comments will be made available for
public inspection, information that the
submitter does not desire to make
public, such as an address or phone
number, should not be included in the
comments.
ADDRESSES:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PO 00000
15531
Sfmt 4702
Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(https://www.regulations.gov) for
additional instructions on providing
comments via the portal. If the
electronic submission of comments is
not feasible due to lack of access to a
computer and/or the internet, please
contact the USPTO using the contact
information below for special
instructions regarding how to submit
comments by mail or by hand delivery,
based upon the public’s ability to obtain
access to USPTO facilities at the time.
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 43 (Monday, March 4, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15525-15531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04437]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0011]
Proposed Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part
B Data (Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.373Y. The Department may
use this priority and these requirements for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2024 and later years. We take this action to focus attention
on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to
improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements
under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
This Center would support States in collecting, reporting, and
determining how to best analyze and use their data and would customize
its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
[[Page 15526]]
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 20, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov,
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period
closes. To ensure the Department does not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under
``FAQ.''
Note: The Department's policy is generally to make comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 245-6391. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priority and requirements. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the final priority and requirements,
we urge you to identify clearly the specific provision of the proposed
priority or requirement that each comment addresses.
Directed Question: Given that Congress has not yet enacted an
appropriation for FY 2024, the Department is still awaiting the
finalization of its FY 2024 appropriations for IDEA, the Department is
considering whether it may use a phased-in funding approach to this
investment, with smaller awards in the initial years of the project and
higher awards in later years. The Department requests specific public
comment on the extent to which such an approach would require
substantive changes to the proposed priority and whether there are
particular areas of focus (e.g., data sharing templates, data analyses
tools) that may benefit from a phased-in approach.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from the proposed priority and requirements. Please let us know of any
further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of
the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing
Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for the proposed priority and requirements. If
you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or
auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the
Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide
TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet
the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of
IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside
for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate
of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review
the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data
and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616
of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the
Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed,
to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection
requirements, which include the data collection and reporting
requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, gives the
Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA
to ``administer and carry out other services and activities to improve
data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of
the IDEA.'' Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328,
Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d),
1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328,
Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
Proposed Priority
This document contains one proposed priority.
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
Background:
We are proposing the same priority that we established through a
notice of final priority published in the Federal Register on August
12, 2019 (84 FR 39736), with three changes. First, the proposed
priority and requirements do not contain the requirement in paragraph
(d)(5) that the applicant demonstrate how it will ensure that it will
recover the lesser of: (a) Its actual indirect costs as determined by
the grantee's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with its
cognizant Federal agency; and (b) 40 percent of its modified total
direct cost base as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, effectively instituting an
indirect cost cap. The Department proposes to remove and has not
included this indirect cost cap in the proposed priority because we
found that it led to a decrease in the number of applicants, which
limited competition. Further, the purpose of the indirect cost cap was
to maximize the amount of grant funds used to provide TA to States to
improve their capacity to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting
requirements. However, we found that was not the case, because the
indirect cost cap did not result in a decrease in the amount of
indirect costs charged, and was thus not needed. Second, expected
outcome (e) in the proposed priority and requirements has been edited
to include ``parents and families'' in the parenthetical providing
examples of local consumers. The Department proposes to include this
language in recognition that families
[[Page 15527]]
may also be local consumers of data. Third, paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(F) of
the application and administrative requirements in the proposed
priority and requirements has been edited to include a parenthetical
providing examples of the Department-funded TA projects with whom this
Center will be expected to coordinate and collaborate. The Department
proposes to include this parenthetical in order to highlight the
Department-funded TA centers which also provide TA on the IDEA data.
The Department reviewed the data collection and analysis capacity
of States to ensure that IDEA data are being collected and accurately
reported to the Department and the public. Specifically, the Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) reviewed and analyzed information
from multiple sources, including data quality reviews conducted by OSEP
to evaluate the accuracy of section 618 data, Department-developed edit
check reports, written and oral communication with States through the
data quality process, and State-initiated requests for TA. The
Department's assessment is that States have varying needs for TA to
improve their IDEA data collection capacity and their ability to ensure
IDEA data are accurate and can be reported to the Department and the
public. States also need ongoing TA to help them improve their capacity
to analyze and use IDEA data so they can provide more accurate
information about their efforts to improve implementation of IDEA and
more accurately target future improvement activities in their State
Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted as part of their State
Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/APRs).
The ongoing need for TA to improve State data collection and
analysis capacity is compounded by the increased turnover in State IDEA
Part B Data Managers (data managers). Since 2019, half of the States
and entities required to submit IDEA section 618 data have experienced
the turnover of at least one data manager, with one State experiencing
six new data managers during this time. In all, 50 new data managers
have begun since 2019. This consistent turnover in data managers
heightens the need for continued TA to support both new and experienced
data managers as they work to collect, report, analyze, and use
accurate IDEA data.
To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA data by States, OSEP proposes a
priority to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use
Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
Proposed Priority:
The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative
agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use
Accurate IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).
The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current
and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements,
improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and
other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and
address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. This Data
Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing,
and using Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 21
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. However, the Data Center
will not provide TA on Part B data required under section 616 of IDEA
for Indicators B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12 (Early Childhood
Transition); TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part B
data associated with children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 for
these indicators will be provided by the National IDEA Technical
Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and
promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among
relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs),
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality
of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely
data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent
future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
(c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing
personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training
modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes),
and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State
collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that
States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and
districts;
(d) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs in collaboration with SEAs,
to collect, report, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to
identify programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root
causes of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress
towards outcomes;
(e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate
tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to
communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents and
families, school boards, the general public); and
(f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B data.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this proposed priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements in this proposed priority,
which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their
capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as both a
means of improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths
and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems,
as appropriate;
(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and
(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
[[Page 15528]]
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes, which
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based
practices (EBPs).\1\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of these requirements,``evidence-based
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report
and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as both a
means of improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for
improvement; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on
the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection
and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections
616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\2\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\3\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\4\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA personnel
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative,
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA
levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data
quality issues, as measured by OSEP's review of the quality of the IDEA
sections 616 and 618 data;
(D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems related to the IDEA
Part B data collection and reporting requirements that include
professional development based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs
and LEAs to meet Part B data collection and reporting requirements
under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
(F) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded TA investments (e.g., the Center funded under
84.373Z, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center for the
Integration of IDEA Data, the Data Center to Address Significant
Disproportionality, and the Weiss Center) and Institute of Education
Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research and
development investments, where appropriate, in order to align
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and
services to meet the purposes of this priority; and
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and
[[Page 15529]]
implemented by a third-party evaluator.\5\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application and
administrative requirements;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the APR and at the end of
Year 2 for the review process; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements:
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff
during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or
industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
(5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing
targeted and intensive TA to States.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority and Requirements
We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and
requirements after considering responses to this document and other
information available to the
[[Page 15530]]
Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use this proposed priority and one or more of
these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review
would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each
case.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires
that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' OIRA has emphasized
that these techniques may include ``identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the proposed priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs.
In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority
and requirements easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed priority and
requirements clearly stated?
Do the proposed priority and requirements contain
technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the proposed priority and requirements
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce their clarity?
Would the proposed priority and requirements be easier to
understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
Could the description of the proposed priority and
requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble
be more helpful in making the proposed priority and requirements easier
to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed priority and
requirements easier to understand?
To send any comments about how the Department could make the
proposed priority and requirements easier to understand, see the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that the proposed priority and requirements would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies;
private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying
areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant
[[Page 15531]]
by the proposed priority and requirements would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of the
proposed priority and requirements would outweigh any costs incurred by
the applicants.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority and
requirements would impose no burden on small entities unless they
applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining
whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of
preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity
probably would apply only if it determines that the likely benefits
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
We believe that the proposed priority and requirements would not
impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the
absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to
prepare an application would likely be the same.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to
support that belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed priority and requirements contain information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1820-0028. The proposed priority and requirements do not affect
the currently approved data collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-04437 Filed 3-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
