Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21663 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves establishing a special local 

regulation issued in conjunction with a 

regatta or marine parade, as described in 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the 

Instruction. Under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(h) of the Instruction, an 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

not required for this proposed rule. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 100.T07–0005 to 

read as follows: 

§ 100.T07–0005 Special Local Regulations; 

Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following 

location is a regulated area: Certain 

waters of the Beaufort River, within the 

following points; 32°25′47′′ N/

080°40′44′′ W, 32°25′41′′ N/080°40′14′′ 

W, 32°25′35′′ N/080°40′16′′ W, 32°25′40′′ 

N/080°40′46′′ W. All coordinates are 

North American Datum 1983. This zone 

will create a regulated area that will 

encompass a portion of the waterway 

that is 700 ft wide by 2600 ft in length. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) All persons and vessels, except 

those participating in the Beaufort 

Water Festival Airshow, or serving as 

safety vessels, are prohibited from 

entering, transiting through, anchoring, 

or remaining within the regulated area. 

Persons and vessels desiring to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area may contact 

the Captain of the Port Charleston by 

telephone at (843) 740–7050, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to request authorization. 

If authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area is granted by the Captain 

of the Port Charleston or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins, Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement Date. This rule will 

be enforced from 11:30 a.m. until 4:30 

p.m. on July 19, 2014. 

Dated: April 2, 2014. 

R.R. Rodriguez, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08785 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0053] 

Proposed Priority—Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection— 

IDEA Data Management Center 

[CFDA Number: 84.373M.] 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 

proposes a funding priority under the 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

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 

of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before July 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email or those 

submitted after the comment period. 

Please submit your comments only one 

time, in order to ensure that we do not 

receive duplicate copies. 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 ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about this proposed 

priority, address them to Meredith 

Miceli, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4071, 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2600. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Data architecture is a set of rules, policies, 

standards and models that govern and define the 

type of data collected and how it’s used, stored, 

managed and integrated within an organization and 

its database systems. It provides a formal approach 

to creating and managing the flow of data and how 

it’s processed across the organization’s IT systems 

and applications.’’ Techopedia. Retrieved from 

www.techopedia.com/definition/29452/dataarchitect. 

2The term statewide longitudinal data system 

refers to ‘‘a data system that collects and maintains 

detailed, high quality, student- and staff-level data 

that are linked across entities over time, providing 

a complete academic and performance history for 

each student; and makes these data accessible 

through reporting and analysis tools.’’ Data Quality 

Campaign. (2012). Retrieved from 

www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/2013_DQC_

Data_for_Action_Survey_Glossary.pdf. 

3The 60 entities that receive IDEA Part B formula 

funds are the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Marianas, Federated States of Micronesia, 

Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Bureau 

of Indian Education. 

4The term student information system refers to ‘‘a 

software application for education establishments 

to manage student data such as attendance, 

demographics, test scores, grades, or schedules in 

real time.’’ Data Quality Campaign. (2012). 

Retrieved from www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/ 

2013_DQC_Data_for_Action_Survey_Glossary.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meredith Miceli. Telephone: (202) 245– 

6028 or by email: Meredith.Miceli@

ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

proposed priority. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priority, we urge 

you to clearly identify the specific topic 

that each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 4071, 550 12th 

Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. 

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 this notice. 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 the IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements. 

Funding for the program is authorized 

under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which 

gives the Secretary the authority to 

reserve funds appropriated under Part B 

of the IDEA to provide TA activities 

authorized under section 616(i) of IDEA. 

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 IDEA 

section 616 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 under IDEA 

Parts B and C, which include the data 

collection requirements in IDEA 

sections 616 and 618. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 

1416(i), 1418(c), and 1442. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

Proposed Priority: 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

IDEA Data Management Center. 

Background: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate an IDEA Data 

Management Center (Center) to achieve, 

at a minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: (a) Improve States’ data 

management procedures and data 

systems architecture 1 to build data files 

and reports to improve States’ capacity 

to meet the Part B reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; and (b) improve States’ 

capacity to utilize their statewide 

longitudinal data systems 2 (SLDS) to 

report high-quality data under IDEA 

Part B required under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA. The Center’s work will 

comply with the privacy and 

confidentiality protections in the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) and IDEA and will not provide 

the Department with access to childlevel data. 

There is a need to assist States in 

restructuring their existing, often 

fragmented, data systems and in 

aligning their data collection for 

students with disabilities to their data 

collection for the general student 

population in the SLDS so that States 

can improve the validity and reliability 

of the data they report to the Secretary 

and the public as required under 

sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. 

Currently, most students with 

disabilities are educated in the same 

settings as students without disabilities; 

however, the majority of States continue 

to treat data about students with 

disabilities as separate from the data for 

students without disabilities. States are 

using alternate data collections to build 

reports to meet the reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA (e.g., discipline, 

assessment, educational environments), 

rather than including all data elements 

needed for Federal reporting in their 

SLDS. 

Based on State responses to an annual 

survey of State education metadata 

conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Education (Department) during the 

school year (SY) 2012–2013, only 26 of 

the 60 State educational agencies 

(SEAs) 3 reported that all of their IDEA 

Part B section 618 data were integrated 

into their student information system,4

and only 20 of the 60 SEAs reported that 

all of their IDEA Part B section 618 data 

were integrated into their SLDS. 

Further, various programs, districts, 

and other facilities are using different 

collection processes to gather data for 

required data submissions. Federal data 

reports that include the same data 

elements on the same subgroups of 

students include data that often do not 

match. These situations hinder the 

States’ capacity to report valid and 

reliable data to the Secretary and to the 

public as required by IDEA section 

616(b)(2)(B) and to meet IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements in 

IDEA sections 616 and 618. 

States with fragmented data systems 

are also more likely to have missing 

data. For example, if a State collects and 

maintains data on disciplinary removals 

of students with disabilities in a special 

education data system and maintains 

data on the demographics of students in 

another data system, the State may not 

be able to accurately match all data on 

disciplinary removals with the 

demographics data needed to meet the 

IDEA reporting requirements. 

The Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) followed up with 14 

SEAs regarding concerns or questions 

about the completeness of the IDEA 

discipline data SY 2012–13 submitted to 

the Department. Nine of the 14 SEAs 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21665 

5The Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) 

is ‘‘a specified set of the most commonly used 

education data elements to support the effective 

exchange of data within and across States, as 

students transition between educational sectors and 

levels, and for Federal reporting’’ (National Center 

for Education Statistics, Common Education Data 

Standards, retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/

programs/ceds/). For more information, see: 

http://ceds.ed.gov/Default.aspx. 

6CEDS Connect tool ‘‘allows stakeholders to 

generate specific and relevant maps to a growing 

pool of CEDS ‘‘connections.’’ Stakeholders from 

varied educational organizations can use the tool to 

identify policy questions and related data elements, 

define analytic approaches, calculate metrics and 

indicators, address reporting requirements, etc. 

CEDS Connect enables users at different levels to 

consider the metric definitions of data points such 

as graduation rate, program enrollment, or academic 

outcomes. By establishing the data elements 

necessary to answer a given question, as well as 

recommended logic and routines for analysis, CEDS 

Connect is designed to help the education data 

community work together towards standard 

definitions and methodologies that will provide 

common, comparable data measurements and 

reporting that can cross districts, States, and 

educational agencies’’ (Common Education Data 

Standards, retrieved from https://ceds.ed.gov/pdf/

ceds-101.pdf). For more information on CEDS 

Connections, see: https://ceds.ed.gov/connect.aspx. 

7 ‘‘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. 

reported that they did not use, or only 

minimally used, their SLDS for 

purposes of IDEA section 618 reporting. 

In addition, States with fragmented 

systems often lack the capacity to crossvalidate related data elements. For 

example, if the data on the type of 

statewide assessment in which students 

with disabilities participate is housed in 

one database and the grade in which 

students are enrolled is housed in 

another database, the State may not be 

able to accurately match the assessment 

data to the accurate grade level to meet 

the IDEA reporting requirements under 

IDEA sections 616 and 618. 

OSEP followed up with 43 SEAs 

regarding the completeness of the SY 

2011–12 IDEA assessment data 

submitted to the Department. Twentyeight of the 43 SEAs reported that they 

did not use, or only minimally used, 

their SLDS for purposes of IDEA section 

618 reporting. 

This kind of fragmentation is not 

limited to IDEA data. The Office of 

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development (OPEPD) and the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

provide assistance to States to meet data 

reporting challenges through their State 

Education Information Support Services 

(SEISS) project. The SEISS project 

provides support to improve the quality, 

comparability, timeliness, and 

usefulness of elementary and secondary 

education data collected by each SEA 

and reported to the Federal government 

via the EDFacts reporting system. An 

additional benefit is that the State can 

also use the improved data as they 

report to school districts, schools, and 

other agencies within the State. The 

SEISS work supports the collection of 

the data required by a variety of the 

Department’s program offices (e.g., 

NCES, and the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education). 

In 2013, SEISS worked with seven 

States to document how elementary and 

secondary education data and meta-data 

were collected and maintained for the 

Common Core Data (CCD) and 

Consolidated State Performance Report 

(CSPR) data submissions for each of the 

States. To document the States’ 

processes, SEISS: (1) Mapped States’ 

source systems related to CCD and CSPR 

data to the common education data 

standards (CEDS); 5 and (2) worked 

across the Department to develop CEDS 

‘‘Connections’’ 6 related to many of the 

EDFacts file specifications associated 

with the CCD and CSPR data. SEISS 

found that: (1) States are using data 

collections other than their SLDS to 

build reports to meet Federal reporting 

requirements; and (2) different data 

collection processes are being used by 

various programs, schools, districts, and 

other facilities to gather data for 

required data submissions. 

The proposed Center will use the 

lessons learned from the SEISS project 

and similar data management 

improvement efforts to build and 

improve States’ capacity to meet the 

IDEA data collection and reporting 

requirements by integrating data on 

students with disabilities into SLDS. 

OSEP will work with NCEDS and its TA 

providers to prevent duplication of 

efforts between SEISS and this proposed 

IDEA Data Management Center. 

The Center will also work with other 

TA centers funded by OSEP. OSEP 

currently funds the Center for IDEA 

Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy 

Center, $6.5 million per year), which 

focuses on helping States build an early 

childhood data infrastructure to meet 

IDEA early childhood data collection 

requirements, and the IDEA Data Center 

(IDC, $6.5 million per year), which 

focuses on assisting States with 

developing necessary data validation 

processes and procedures to ensure high 

quality IDEA data submissions. Finally, 

all TA conducted by the IDEA Data 

Management Center will be coordinated 

with other relevant Federal data efforts 

to help States incorporate best practices 

in data management, reporting, 

confidentiality and other aspects of data 

systems (e.g., SLDS Program, the 

Privacy Technical Assistance Center, 

and the CEDS initiative). 

Proposed Priority: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate an IDEA Data 

Management Center (Center) to achieve, 

at a minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: (a) Improve States’ data 

management procedures and data 

systems architecture to build data files 

and reports to improve States’ capacity 

to meet the Part B reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; and (b) improve States’ 

capacity to utilize their SLDS to report 

high-quality data under IDEA Part B as 

required under sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA. The Center’s work will comply 

with the privacy and confidentiality 

protections in FERPA and IDEA and 

will not provide the Department with 

access to child-level data. 

Project Activities. To meet the 

requirements of this priority, the IDEA 

Data Management Center at a minimum, 

must: 

Knowledge Development Activities in 

Year One. 

(a) Document the methods of 

collecting, processing, and reporting the 

IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data 

for the 60 SEAs. The documentation 

must align the data used by the States 

to meet the Part B IDEA data to CEDS. 

(b) Analyze the methods of collection, 

processing, and reporting the Part B 

IDEA data for commonalities and 

challenges and identify States in need of 

intensive or targeted TA. 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Activities. 

(a) Provide intensive TA 7 to at least 

10 States to improve their ability to 

utilize SLDS as sources for reporting 

Part B data required under sections 616 

and 618 of IDEA. The Center should use 

information obtained through the 

activities described under paragraph (a) 

of the Knowledge Development 

Activities section of this priority to 

inform the intensive TA, which should 

be focused on States that are not using 

their SLDS to report their IDEA Part B 

section 616 and 618 data. 

Note: Applicants must describe the 

methods and criteria they will use to recruit 

and select States for intensive TA. The Center 

must obtain approval from OSEP on the final 

selection of intensive TA States. 

(b) Provide a range of targeted and 

general TA products and services for 

improving States’ capacity to report 

high-quality Part B data required under 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8For more information on CEDS Connections, 

see: https://ceds.ed.gov/connect.aspx. 

9 ‘‘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 Web site by independent 

users. Brief communications by TA center staff with 

recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 

considered universal, general TA. 

10 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA service 

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. 

sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Such TA 

should include, at a minimum: 

(1) Working with the Department to 

develop open source electronic tools to 

assist States in building EDFacts data 

files and reports that can be submitted 

to the Department and made available to 

the public. The tools should utilize 

CEDS and meet all States’ and entities’ 

needs associated with reporting the Part 

B data required under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; 

(2) Developing a plan to maintain the 

appropriate functionality of the open 

source electronic tools described in 

paragraph (1) as changes are made to 

data collections, reporting requirements, 

file specifications, and CEDS; 

(3) Conducting training with State 

staff to use the open source electronic 

tools; 

(4) Developing CEDS ‘‘Connections’’ 8

to calculate metrics needed to report the 

Part B data required under sections 616 

and 618 of IDEA; and 

(5) Developing white papers and 

presentations that include tools and 

solutions to challenges in data 

management procedures and data 

system architecture for reporting the 

Part B data required under sections 616 

and 618 of IDEA. 

Coordination Activities. 

(a) Communicate and coordinate, on 

an ongoing basis, with other 

Department-funded projects, including 

those providing data-related support to 

States, such as IDC, DaSy, the CEDS 

initiative, the SLDS program, and the 

Privacy Technical Assistance Center; 

and 

(b) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the OSEP project officer. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority. OSEP encourages innovative 

approaches to meet these requirements, 

which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance of the Project,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Address State challenges in 

collecting, analyzing, and accurately 

reporting valid and reliable IDEA data 

on State data management procedures 

and data systems architecture and in 

building EDFacts data files and reports 

for timely reporting of the IDEA data to 

the Department and the public. To meet 

this requirement the applicant must— 

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA 

data collections and EDFacts file 

specifications for the IDEA data 

collection; and 

(ii) Present information about the 

difficulties that States have encountered 

in the collection and submission of 

valid and reliable IDEA data; 

(2) Result in improved IDEA data 

collection and reporting. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Project Services,’’ how 

the proposed project will— 

(1) Achieve the project’s goals, 

objectives, and intended outcomes. To 

meet this requirement, the applicant 

must provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) The logic model by which the 

proposed project will achieve its 

intended outcomes; 

(2) Use a conceptual framework to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or 

theories, as well as the presumed 

relationships or linkages among them, 

and any empirical support for this 

framework; 

(3) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based practices. 

To meet this requirement, the applicant 

must describe— 

(i) The current research on the 

effectiveness of IDEA data collection 

strategies, data management procedures, 

and data systems architectures; 

(ii) How the current research about 

adult learning principles and 

implementation science will inform the 

proposed TA; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and 

evidence-based practices in the 

development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(4) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it will develop knowledge of 

States’ data management processes and 

data systems architecture; 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA 9 for the 60 SEAs; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA,10 which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients of 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 educational agency 

(LEA) level, as appropriate; 

(iv) Its proposed approach to 

intensive, sustained TA, which must 

identify— 

(A) The intended recipients of the 

products and services under this 

approach; 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of the SEAs to work with 

the proposed project including the 

SEA’s commitment to the initiative, fit 

of the initiatives, current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the LEA level, as 

appropriate; and 

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting 

SEAs to build training systems that 

include professional development based 

on adult learning principles and 

coaching. 

(5) Develop products and implement 

services to maximize the project’s 

efficiency. To address this requirement, 

the applicant must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; and 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration. 

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Evaluation Plan,’’ how— 

(1) The proposed project will collect 

and analyze data on specific and 

measurable goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes of the project. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe its— 

(i) Proposed evaluation 

methodologies, including instruments, 

data collection methods, and analyses; 

and 

(ii) Proposed standards of 

effectiveness; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21667 

(2) The proposed project will use the 

evaluation results to examine the 

effectiveness of its implementation and 

its progress toward achieving the 

intended outcomes; and 

(3) The methods of evaluation will 

produce quantitative and qualitative 

data that demonstrate whether the 

project achieved the intended outcomes. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’ 

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. 

(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) How 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; 

and 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives, 

including those of State and local 

personnel, TA providers, researchers, 

and policy makers, among others, in its 

development and operation. 

(f) Address the following application 

requirements. The applicant must— 

(1) Include in Appendix A of the 

application a logic model that depicts, 

at a minimum, the goals, activities, 

outputs, and outcomes of the proposed 

project. A logic model communicates 

how a project will achieve its intended 

outcomes and provides a framework for 

both the formative and summative 

evaluations of the project. 

Note: The following Web sites provide 

more information on logic models: 

www.researchutilization.org/matrix/

logicmodel_resource3c.html and 

www.tadnet.org/pages/589; 

(2) Include in Appendix A of the 

application a conceptual framework for the 

project; 

(3) Include in Appendix A of the 

application person-loading charts and 

timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the 

management plan described in the narrative; 

(4) Include in the proposed budget funding 

for 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; 

(iii) Two annual two-day trips for 

Department briefings, Department-sponsored 

conferences, and other meetings, as requested 

by OSEP; and 

(iv) A one-day intensive review meeting in 

Washington, DC, during the last half of the 

second year of the project period; 

(5) Include in the budget a line item for an 

annual set-aside of five percent of the grant 

amount to support emerging needs that are 

consistent with the proposed project’s 

intended outcomes, as those needs are 

identified in consultation with OSEP. 

Note: 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; and 

(6) Maintain a Web site that meets 

government or industry-recognized standards 

for accessibility. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this proposed priority, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only on a reasoned determination that 

its benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both 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. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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 Adobe 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. 

Dated: April 14, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08796 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0594; FRL–9909–55– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; States of 

Arkansas and Louisiana; Clean Air 

Interstate Rule State Implementation 

Plan Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions submitted to the applicable 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

addressing the requirements of EPA’s 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for 

Arkansas and Louisiana. EPA is 

proposing to approve revisions to the 

CAIR NOX Ozone Season allocation 

methodology adopted on December 5, 

2008, by the Arkansas Pollution Control 

and Ecology Commission and submitted 

as revisions to the Arkansas SIP on 

September 16, 2009. EPA is proposing 

to approve revisions to the CAIR NOX

Annual and Ozone Season Abbreviated 

SIP for the annual and ozone season 

NOX allocation methodologies and the 

CAIR SO2 SIP adopted on June 20, 2008 

by the State of Louisiana and submitted 

as revisions to the Louisiana SIP on July 

1, 2009. EPA has evaluated the CAIR 

SIP revisions for Arkansas and 

Louisiana and made the preliminary 

determination that these revisions are 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAIR and the Clean Air Act. Therefore 

we are proposing to approve the 

revisions to the Arkansas and Louisiana 

SIPs under section 110 of the Act. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before May 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley (6PD–R), telephone (214) 

665–2115, email address wiley.adina@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as noncontroversial submittal 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS