13294 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

sections 38 and 46 of the Code. The 

Proposed Regulations address the 

treatment of certain gas upgrading 

equipment in a manner that warrants a 

correction. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the Proposed 

Regulations would exclude from the 

definition of ‘‘qualified biogas property’’ 

any ‘‘gas upgrading equipment 

necessary to concentrate the gas into the 

appropriate mixture for injection into a 

pipeline through removal of other gases 

such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or 

oxygen.’’ See proposed § 1.48– 

9(e)(11)(i). Proposed § 1.48–9(f)(1) 

would provide, however, that property 

owned by the taxpayer that is an 

integral part of an energy property (as 

defined in proposed § 1.48–9(f)(3)) is 

treated as energy property. A correction 

is needed to clarify that gas upgrading 

equipment that is necessary to 

concentrate the gas from qualified 

biogas property into the appropriate 

mixture for injection into a pipeline 

through removal of other gases such as 

carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or oxygen, 

would be energy property if it is an 

integral part of an energy property as 

defined in proposed § 1.48–9(f)(3). 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 

Proposed Regulations, which was the 

subject of FR Doc. 2023–25539, is 

corrected by revising the following 

sentence on page 82214, in the second 

column and before the first full 

paragraph: ‘‘However, gas upgrading 

equipment necessary to concentrate the 

gas into the appropriate mixture for 

injection into a pipeline through 

removal of other gases such as carbon 

dioxide, nitrogen, or oxygen is not 

included in qualified biogas property.’’ 

This sentence should be revised to read 

as follows: ‘‘However, gas upgrading 

equipment necessary to concentrate the 

gas into the appropriate mixture for 

injection into a pipeline through 

removal of other gases such as carbon 

dioxide, nitrogen, or oxygen is not a 

functionally interdependent component 

(as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this 

section) of qualified biogas property.’’ 

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor, 

Section Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Section, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure 

and Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03632 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OSERS–0001] 

Proposed Priorities and 

Requirements—Technical Assistance 

on State Data Collection—National 

Technical Assistance Center To 

Improve State Capacity To Collect, 

Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 

Early Childhood IDEA Data 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities and 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes priorities and 

requirements for a National Technical 

Assistance Center To Improve State 

Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, 

and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA 

Data (Center) under the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program, Assistance Listing Number 

(ALN) 84.373Z. The Department may 

use these priorities and requirements for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 

and later years. We take this action to 

identify the national need to provide 

technical assistance (TA) to improve the 

capacity of States to meet the early 

childhood data collection and reporting 

requirements under Part B and Part C of 

the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 7, 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: 

Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 987–0135. Email: 

Meredith.Miceli@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 priorities and requirements. 

To ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the final 

priorities and requirements, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

section of the proposed priorities and 

requirements that each comment 

addresses. 

Directed Question: Given that 

Congress has not yet enacted an 

appropriation for FY 2024, 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 

these proposed priorities 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 priorities 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13295 

1Throughout this document, ‘‘IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data’’ refers to IDEA 

Part C data (including IDEA section 618 Part C data 

and IDEA section 616 Part C data) and IDEA Part 

B preschool special education data on children with 

disabilities, ages 3 through 5, required under 

section 616 of IDEA for those indicators that are not 

solely based on IDEA section 618 data (e.g., SPP/ 

APR Indicators B7 (Preschool Children with 

Improved Outcomes) and B12 (Transition from Part 

C to Part B). 

2TA on the other Part B data required under 

sections 616 and 618 of IDEA would be provided 

through the proposed priority in the notice of 

proposed priority and requirements for the National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve State 

Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 

Accurate IDEA Part B Data (ALN 84.373Y). 

3 Indicator C4 requires States to report on the 

percent of families participating in Part C who 

report that early intervention services have helped 

the family: (a) know their rights; (b) effectively 

communicate their children’s needs; and (c) help 

their children develop and learn. 

4For more information on ITCA’s 2022 Tipping 

Points Survey, please go to 2022 Tipping Points 

Survey (ideainfanttoddler.org). 

www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2022-TippingPoints-Survey.pdf. 

5Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. 

(2023). Part B, section 619 National Survey 2023. 

https://ectacenter.org/sec619/sec619survey.asp. 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed priorities 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 sections 616 and 

642 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported to the Secretary. It 

also requires the Secretary to provide 

TA, where needed, to improve the 

capacity of States to meet the data 

collection requirements, which include 

the data collection and reporting 

requirements in sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA. In addition, the 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 Priorities 

This document contains two proposed 

priorities. 

Proposed Priority 1: National 

Technical Assistance Center To Improve 

State Capacity To Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate Early 

Childhood IDEA Data. 

Background: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to establish a TA center to provide TA 

to (1) improve States’ capacity to collect, 

report, analyze, and use high-quality 

IDEA Part C early intervention data 

(including IDEA section 618 Part C data 

and section 616 Part C data) and IDEA 

Part B preschool special education 

data 1 (limited to Part B preschool data 

elements required under IDEA sections 

616 and 618 2); and (2) enhance, 

streamline, and integrate statewide, 

child-level early childhood data systems 

(including Part C and Part B preschool 

special education data systems) to 

address critical policy questions that 

would facilitate program improvement 

and improve compliance accountability 

and outcomes or results for children 

served under Part C early intervention 

and Part B preschool special education 

programs. 

Recently, there have been increased 

expectations for State Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs to collect, 

report, analyze, and use high-quality 

data. State-level staff in Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs are expected 

to report higher quality data, be able to 

provide more in-depth explanations of 

the data, use the data to improve 

programs, compliance, and general 

supervision of Part C early intervention 

and Part B preschool special education 

programs, and present the data in an 

understandable fashion to all data users, 

including novice data users. Under the 

EDFacts Modernization Project, which 

began with the submission of the 2022– 

23 IDEA section 618 data, the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) is 

expecting States to conduct data quality 

work prior to the due date for States to 

submit their data; this work was 

previously completed by OSEP after the 

due date. Additionally, beginning with 

the Federal fiscal year 2022 State 

Performance Plan/Annual Performance 

Report (SPP/APR) (submitted in 2024), 

State Part C early intervention programs 

must report additional data and 

information to support the assumption 

that the data reported for indicator C4 

(Family Involvement) 3 are 

representative of those infants and 

toddlers with disabilities and their 

families receiving services in their State. 

Also, State-level staff in Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs are expected 

to analyze and use data to support and 

provide evidence of compliance with 

requirements of IDEA and improvement 

of results for children with disabilities 

through OSEP’s Differentiated 

Monitoring and Support as part of the 

results-driven accountability system. 

Finally, there is an expectation that 

States present their data in a format that 

engages stakeholders to participate in 

important discussions about program 

improvement and accountability 

compliance. 

As IDEA data expectations have 

evolved and increased, there is a need 

to support both experienced and new 

data staff who work in Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs. In 2023, 

approximately 17 percent of the State 

data managers for Part C early 

intervention programs had been in the 

job less than a year and approximately 

23 percent had only been in the job 

between one and three years. The IDEA 

Infants and Toddlers Coordinators 

Association (ITCA) reported that 51 

percent of Part C coordinators have been 

in the position for two years or less in 

their 2022 Tipping Points Survey (ITCA, 

2022).4 In 2023, approximately 59 

percent of Part B preschool special 

education coordinators had three or less 

years of experience (Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center, 2023).5

Due to the continued turnover among 

Part C early intervention and Part B 

preschool special education staff, there 

is a need to support new and novice 

staff to collect, report, analyze, and 

appropriately use the IDEA data. 

Due to increased expectations on the 

collection, reporting, analysis, and use 

of IDEA data and staff turnover, there is 

a need to find efficient, effective, and 

user-friendly approaches to conducting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13296 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6Perez, N., & Mercier, B. (2022). 2021 DaSy data 

systems (State of the States) survey findings. SRI 

International. https://dasycenter.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/12/DaSy_2021DaSyDataSystems

SurveyFindings_Acc.pdf. 

7The Center must review the need for additional 

resources (with input from the Department) and 

disseminate existing resources developed by the 

Department, such as: (1) Understanding the 

Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA 

Early Childhood Programs (October 2016); (2) 

IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk (Surprenant & Miller, 

August 24, 2022); (3) Webinars such as Navigating 

IDEA and FERPA To Protect Privacy in Today’s 

Early Childhood World (September 22, 2023); and 

(4) Data sharing agreement template. 

the early childhood IDEA data work. 

Improved data management processes, 

as well as the growing development of 

linked and integrated child-level data in 

Part C data systems, Part B preschool 

special education data systems, other 

early learning program data systems, 

and statewide longitudinal data systems 

for school-aged children, are key 

approaches for States in meeting these 

increased expectations. States need to 

establish and implement effective early 

childhood data management and, where 

appropriate, data system integration 

policies and procedures to support 

program improvement, compliance 

accountability, and Federal and public 

reporting. Improved policies and 

procedures would allow States, where 

appropriate, to link or integrate childlevel data in Part C data systems, Part 

B preschool special education data 

systems, other early learning program 

data systems, and statewide 

longitudinal data systems for schoolaged children. An early childhood 

integrated data system (ECIDS) could 

help States to identify what works best 

to improve outcomes for young children 

in their States. For instance, an ECIDS 

provides the opportunity for States to 

assess which characteristics of services 

are related to better outcomes for 

children and families or the relationship 

between early childhood setting and 

early childhood outcomes. An ECIDS 

that includes data from across various 

early care and education programs 

could also improve child find activities 

in the State by identifying strong referral 

sources and those where more outreach 

may be needed. An ECIDS could also 

help States determine the other early 

care and education programs that young 

children with disabilities and their 

families are participating in, allowing 

States to maximize efficiency in the 

operation of the early intervention or 

early childhood special education 

program while maintaining or 

improving outcomes. 

Building robust ECIDSs that include 

Part C early intervention data and Part 

B preschool special education data 

would improve responses to critical 

policy questions, facilitate program 

improvement, and improve compliance 

accountability for Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs. This level 

of integration would help ensure that 

States report high-quality IDEA data to 

the Department and the public. 

Though some improvements have 

been made over the last 10 years in 

linking and integrating Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education data to data from 

other early learning programs, K–12 

data systems, and the workforce, as well 

as longitudinally over time, the percent 

of State programs that report they can 

make these linkages remained low in 

2021. Less than 40 percent of Part C 

early intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs that 

responded said they can link their 

child-level data to their workforce data. 

Less than 30 percent of Part C early 

intervention programs that responded 

said their State links Part C child-level 

data to Early Head Start, Head Start, 

State Pre-K, childcare programs, home 

visiting programs, or other early care or 

education programs. Most Part C early 

intervention programs that responded 

said they have never linked their Part C 

data to their Part B preschool special 

education data.6

This proposed priority would directly 

address the increased expectations and 

capacity challenges Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs face with 

respect to effectively and efficiently 

collecting, reporting, analyzing, and 

using high-quality IDEA data. 

Proposed Priority 1: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate a National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Capacity to Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate Early 

Childhood IDEA Data (Center). 

The Center will provide TA to (1) 

improve States’ capacity to collect, 

report, analyze, and use high-quality 

IDEA Part C data (including IDEA 

section 618 Part C data and IDEA 

section 616 Part C data) and IDEA Part 

B preschool special education data on 

children with disabilities; and (2) 

enhance, streamline, and integrate 

statewide, child-level early childhood 

data systems (including Part C and Part 

B preschool special education data 

systems) to address critical policy 

questions that will facilitate program 

improvement, improve compliance 

accountability, and improve outcomes 

or results for children served under Part 

C and Part B preschool special 

education programs. These Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education data systems must 

allow the States to (1) effectively and 

efficiently respond to all IDEA-related 

data submission requirements (e.g., Part 

C section 616 and 618 data and Part B 

preschool special education data); (2) 

respond to critical policy questions that 

will facilitate program improvement and 

compliance accountability; and (3) 

comply with applicable privacy 

requirements, including the privacy and 

confidentiality requirements under Parts 

B and C of IDEA and applicable 

provisions of the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 

1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR part 

99.7 The Center must achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: 

(a) Increased capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use highquality IDEA Part C data (including 

IDEA section 616 Part C data and 

section 618 Part C data); 

(b) Increased capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use highquality IDEA Part B preschool special 

education data; 

(c) Increased number of States with 

data system integration plans that 

consider the linking of Part C and Part 

B preschool special education data (that 

comply with all applicable privacy 

laws) and using such integrated or 

linked Part C early intervention and Part 

B preschool special education data to 

improve program compliance and 

accountability; 

(d) Increased number of States that 

use their Part C early intervention and 

Part B preschool special education data 

system to identify and answer critical 

State-determined policy questions to 

drive program improvement, improve 

results for children with disabilities, 

and improve compliance accountability; 

(e) Increased capacity of States to use 

available integrated or linked Part C 

early intervention and Part B preschool 

special education data and/or early 

childhood integrated data systems to 

analyze high-quality data on the 

participation and outcomes of infants, 

toddlers, and children with disabilities 

served under IDEA who may also 

participate in other programs (e.g., 

childcare, Early Head Start, Head Start, 

child care, publicly funded preschool, 

and home visiting programs); 

(f) Increased number of States with 

data system integration plans that 

consider linking of Part C and Part B 

preschool special education data 

systems to other statewide longitudinal 

and early learning data systems and 

ensure that such linkages comply with 

all applicable privacy laws; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13297 

8The GAO Report and the Department’s response 

concurring with the recommendation can be found 

at www.gao.gov/assets/d24106019.pdf. 

9Per the Part C State Performance Plan and 

Annual Performance Report (Part C SPP/APR) 

General Instructions, ‘‘If a State is required to report 

on the reasons for slippage, then the State must 

include the results of its analysis under the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section of Indicators 5 

and 6.’’ Part C State Performance Plan and Annual 

Performance Report (Part C SPP/APR)—General 

Instructions—For Federal Fiscal Year 2023 

Submission. 

10For the FFY 2023 SPP/APR Indicators C–5 and 

C–6, the Department noted that ‘‘to improve the 

analysis of whether States are identifying children 

who need services as early as possible, States 

should conduct root cause analyses of child find 

identification rates, including reviewing data (if 

available) on the number of children referred, 

evaluated, and identified. This root cause analysis 

Continued 

(g) Increased capacity of States to 

implement and document Part C and 

Part B preschool special education data 

management policies and procedures 

and data system integration activities 

and to develop a sustainability plan to 

continue this data management and data 

system integration work in the future; 

(h) Increased capacity of States to 

address personnel training needs to 

meet the Part C and Part B preschool 

special education data collection and 

reporting requirements under sections 

616 and 618 of IDEA through 

development of effective tools (e.g., 

training modules) and resources (e.g., 

new Part C Data Managers resources), as 

well as providing opportunities for inperson and virtual cross-State training 

for personnel in State and local 

programs and agencies regarding Part C 

early intervention and Part B preschool 

special education data collection and 

reporting requirements; and 

(i) Increased capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use Part C 

and Part B preschool special education 

data to support equitable identification, 

access, services, outcomes, and impact 

of early intervention and preschool 

special education and related services 

on infants, toddlers, and young children 

receiving services under IDEA. 

In addition, the Center must provide 

a range of targeted and general TA 

products and services for improving 

States’ capacity to link and integrate 

their Part C early intervention and Part 

B preschool special education data with 

data/data systems associated with other 

Federal programs that support infants, 

toddlers, and young children and their 

families in order to report high-quality 

Part C data and Part B preschool special 

education data required under sections 

616 and 618 of IDEA, drive program 

improvement, improve results for 

children with disabilities, and improve 

compliance accountability. Such TA 

must include, at a minimum, in Years 

2 through 5: 

(a) In partnership with the 

Department, developing an open-source 

electronic tool to assist States in linking 

and integrating their Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education data with other data/ 

data systems associated with other 

Federal programs that support infants, 

toddlers, and young children and their 

families in order to provide high-quality 

reporting of the Part C data and Part B 

preschool special education data 

required under sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA, drive program improvement, 

improve results for children with 

disabilities, and improve compliance 

accountability. The tool must utilize 

Common Education Data Standards 

(CEDS) and meet States’ needs 

associated with linking or integrating 

their Part C early intervention and Part 

B preschool special education data with 

other data/data systems associated with 

other Federal programs that support 

infants, toddlers, and young children 

and their families; 

(b) Developing CEDS ‘‘Connections’’ 

to ensure the electronic tool is built for 

States to conduct analyses related to 

reporting the IDEA Part C data and IDEA 

Part B preschool special education data 

required under sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA, driving program improvement, 

improving results for children with 

disabilities, and improving compliance 

accountability; 

(c) Developing and implementing a 

plan to maintain the appropriate 

functionality of the open-source 

electronic tool described in paragraph 

(a) of this section as changes are made 

to data reporting requirements and 

CEDS; 

(d) Conducting TA on data 

governance to facilitate the use of the 

open-source electronic tool and 

providing training to State staff to 

implement the open-source electronic 

tool; and 

(e) Supporting a user group of States 

that are using an open-source electronic 

tool for reporting the IDEA Part C data 

and IDEA Part B preschool special 

education data required under sections 

616 and 618 of IDEA. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements under 

Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed 

Priority 2 Common Elements. 

Proposed Priority 2: Technical 

Assistance To Improve State Capacity 

To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use 

Accurate Child Find Data For Infants 

and Toddlers. 

Background: The purpose of this 

proposed priority is to establish a TA 

center to provide TA to increase the 

capacity of States to collect, report, 

analyze, and use data available to States 

to improve their Part C child find data 

and efforts that they report through their 

Part C SPP/APR. 

On October 5, 2023, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) issued a report ‘‘Special 

Education: Additional Data Could Help 

Early Intervention Programs Reach More 

Eligible Infants and Toddlers’’ noting 

variation across racial groups at each 

step of the identification and enrollment 

process for early intervention services 

under Part C of IDEA (GAO–24– 

106019)(2023 GAO IDEA Part C Child 

Find Report).8 Based on an analysis of 

data from 16 States, GAO found that the 

percentage of infants and toddlers who 

engaged in the first two steps (from 

referred to evaluated) differed widely by 

race. However, the percentage of infants 

and toddlers who engaged in the third 

to the fourth step (from eligible to 

enrolled) looked similar across races. 

For example, the percentage of infants 

and toddlers who were referred and 

subsequently received an evaluation 

ranged from 59 percent for American 

Indian and Alaska Native children to 86 

percent for Asian children (a 27 

percentage-point difference). In contrast, 

the percentage of those determined 

eligible and subsequently enrolled 

ranged from 91 percent for American 

Indian or Alaska Native children to 95 

percent for Asian and White children (a 

four percentage-point difference). 

Specifically, the 2023 GAO IDEA Part 

C Child Find Report had one matter for 

Congress and one recommendation for 

the Department, to which the 

Department agreed. GAO recommended 

that the Department encourage all States 

to use demographic data they already 

collect to maximize children’s access to 

Part C early intervention services. In its 

September 13, 2023 response, the 

Department noted its plans to 

implement this recommendation. The 

Department has established that, 

beginning with the Federal fiscal year 

(FFY) 2023 SPP/APR that States submit 

in February 2024, all States should 

report under SPP/APR child find 

indicators C–5 and C–6 on their root 

cause analysis of their child find efforts 

by using all data available to the State 

and not just the child find data reported 

under SPP/APR Indicators C–5 and C– 

6.9 Additionally, beginning with the 

FFY 2023 SPP/APR, a State must report 

this root cause analysis if the State 

shows slippage in the FFY 2023 data it 

reports under SPP/APR indicators C–5 

and C–6.10


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13298 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

may include examining not only demographic data 

(such as race and ethnicity data reported under 

IDEA section 618 and Indicators C–5 and C–6), but 

also other child-find related data available to the 

State (such as geographic location, family income, 

primary language, etc.). The State should report the 

results of its analysis under the ‘‘Additional 

Information’’ section of the Indicators C–5 and C– 

6. Furthermore, if a State is required to report on 

the reasons for slippage, then the State must 

include the results of its analysis under the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section of the Indicators 

C–5 and C–6.’’ See, https://omb.report/icr/202305- 

1820-001/doc/131687100. 

Though many State Part C programs 

already use demographic data on infants 

and toddlers to identify disparities and 

improve access to Part C services, not all 

States have implemented similar 

analyses of other data that can affect 

child find identification rates. Analysis 

of child find data that could be relevant 

would include not only analysis of race 

and ethnicity data reported under IDEA 

section 618, but would also include 

analysis of other child-find related data 

available to the State (such as 

geographic location, family income, and 

primary language). Conducting analyses 

of these other child find-related data 

would enable all State Part C programs 

to better identify and serve infants and 

toddlers who are eligible for, and need 

services under, Part C of IDEA. To 

support equitable access to early 

intervention services under Part C of 

IDEA, this proposed priority would 

provide TA to States as they begin 

reporting on their root cause analyses 

using all available child find-related 

data to improve their data analyses, 

child find efforts, and children’s access 

to early intervention services under Part 

C of IDEA. 

Proposed Priority 2: 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

TA to increase the capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use 

available data to improve the Part C 

child find data they report through their 

Part C SPP/APR. 

The Center must achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: 

(a) Increased capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use 

available data to improve the Part C 

child find data (including IDEA section 

616 Part C data for indicators C5 and C6 

and section 618 Part C data); 

(b) Increased number of States that 

have the capacity to identify, for 

children served under IDEA Part C, 

other data they may collect (such as 

number of infants and toddlers: referred; 

screened; evaluated; eligible; and 

enrolled in early intervention services 

under Part C) by various characteristics 

of the child, including, at a minimum: 

race, ethnicity, home language, gender, 

socio-economic status, and geographic 

location; 

(c) Increased number of States that 

have the capacity to conduct a root 

cause analysis of available child find 

data to better identify disparities among 

demographic groups and potential 

barriers to enrollment in early 

intervention services under Part C of 

IDEA; and 

(d) Increased number of States that 

have the capacity to use their IDEA and 

non-IDEA Part C child find data to 

improve the child find processes at the 

State and local program levels. 

In addition to these program 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this proposed priority, 

applicants must meet the application 

and administrative requirements under 

Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed 

Priority 2 Common Elements. 

Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed 

Priority 2 Common Elements: 

In addition to the program 

requirements contained in both 

priorities, to be considered for funding 

applicants must meet the following 

application and administrative 

requirements, which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed 

project will— 

(1) Address State challenges 

associated with early childhood data 

management and data system 

integration, including implementing 

early childhood data system integration 

and improvements; enhancing and 

streamlining Part C early intervention 

and Part B preschool special education 

data systems to respond to critical 

policy questions; using ECIDS for 

program improvement and compliance 

accountability for Part C early 

intervention and Part B preschool 

special education programs; reporting 

high-quality IDEA Part C data (including 

IDEA section 616 Part C data and 

section 618 Part C data) and IDEA Part 

B preschool special education data to 

the Department and the public; and 

analyzing Part C child find data to 

improve equitable access to Part C early 

intervention services. To meet this 

requirement the applicant must— 

(i) Present applicable national, State, 

or local data demonstrating the 

challenges of States to implement 

effective early childhood data 

management policies and procedures 

and data system integration activities, 

including integrating early childhood 

data systems across IDEA programs, 

other early learning programs, and other 

educational programs for school-aged 

students; linking Part C and Part B 

preschool special education program 

data; using their Part C and Part B 

preschool special education data 

systems to respond to critical Statedetermined policy questions for 

program improvement and compliance 

accountability; and collecting, reporting, 

analyzing, and using Part C child find 

data to improve equitable access to Part 

C early intervention services; 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

educational and technical issues and 

policy initiatives relating to early 

childhood data management and data 

system integration, data use, data 

privacy, Part C IDEA sections 616 and 

618 data, Part C child find data, Part B 

preschool special education data, and 

Part C and Part B preschool special 

education data systems; and 

(iii) Present information about the 

current level of implementation of 

integrating or linking Part C and Part B 

preschool special education data 

systems; integrating or linking Part C 

and/or Part B preschool special 

education data systems with other early 

learning data systems; using Part C and 

Part B preschool special education data 

systems to respond to critical Statedetermined policy questions; and 

collecting, reporting, analyzing, and 

using high-quality IDEA Part C data 

(including IDEA section 616 Part C data 

and section 618 Part C data) and IDEA 

Part B preschool special education data; 

and 

(2) Improve early childhood data 

management policies and procedures 

and data system integration activities 

used to collect, report, and analyze 

high-quality Part C and Part B preschool 

special education data (including Part C 

child find data); to integrate or link Part 

C and Part B preschool special 

education data systems as well as 

integrate or link these data with data on 

children participating in other early 

learning programs and data on schoolaged children; and to develop and use 

robust early childhood data systems to 

answer critical State-determined policy 

questions; and indicate the likely 

magnitude or importance of the 

improvements. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment 

for members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Identify the needs of the intended 

recipients for TA and information; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13299 

11For purposes of these requirements,’’evidencebased’’ means, at a minimum, demonstrating a 

rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on highquality research findings or positive evaluation that 

such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to 

improve student outcomes or other relevant 

outcomes. 

12 ‘‘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. 

13 ‘‘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. 

14 ‘‘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. 

(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/resourcesgrantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tadproject-logic-model-and-conceptualframework. 

(4) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based 11 practices 

(EBPs). To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on early 

childhood data management and data 

system integration, and related EBPs; 

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 early 

childhood data management and data 

system integration; 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA,12 which must 

identify the intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; and 

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA,13 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 potential TA recipients 

to work with the project, assessing, at a 

minimum, their current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the State and local levels; 

and 

(C) The process by which the 

proposed project will collaborate with 

OSEP-funded centers and other 

federally funded TA centers to develop 

and implement a coordinated TA plan 

when the work of the center or centers 

overlaps with the proposed project; and 

(iv) Its proposed approach to 

intensive, sustained TA,14 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 

addressing States’ challenges associated 

with limited resources to engage in early 

childhood data system integration and 

enhancement activities that streamline 

the established Part C and Part B 

preschool special education data 

systems to respond to critical policy 

questions and to report high-quality 

IDEA data to the Department and the 

public, which must, at a minimum, 

include providing on-site consultants to 

the State lead agency (LA) or State 

educational agency (SEA) to— 

(1) Model and document data 

management and data system 

integration policies, procedures, 

processes, and activities within the 

State; 

(2) Develop and adapt tools and 

provide technical solutions to meet 

State-specific data needs; and 

(3) Develop a sustainability plan for 

the State to continue the data 

management and data system 

integration work in the future; 

(C) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of the State LA and 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 State and local program 

and district levels; 

(D) 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; 

(E) Its proposed plan for assisting 

State LAs and SEAs to build or enhance 

training systems that include 

professional development based on 

adult learning principles and coaching; 

(F) Its proposed plan for working with 

appropriate levels of the education 

system (e.g., State LAs, SEAs, regional 

TA providers, districts, local programs, 

families) to ensure that there is 

communication between each level and 

that there are systems in place to 

support the collection, reporting, 

analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA 

Part C data (including IDEA section 616 

Part C data, section 618 Part C data, and 

Part C child find data) and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data as well 

as early childhood data management 

and data system integration; and 

(G) Its proposed plan for collaborating 

and coordinating with the National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Capacity to Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 

Data, Early Childhood Technical 

Assistance Center, other Departmentfunded TA investments, other federally 

funded TA investments, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13300 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

15A ‘‘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. 

priority and to develop and implement 

a coordinated TA plan when they are 

involved in a State; and 

(6) Develop products and implement 

services that maximize efficiency. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

use non-project resources to achieve the 

intended project outcomes. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation,’’ include an 

evaluation plan for the project 

developed in consultation with and 

implemented by a third-party 

evaluator.15 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; 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,’’ 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. The applicant must— 

(1) Include, in appendix A, personnelloading 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. 

(ii) A three-day project directors’ 

conference in Washington, DC, during 

each year of the project period, provided 

that, if the conference is conducted 

virtually, the project must reallocate 

unused travel funds no later than the 

end of the third quarter of each budget 

period. 

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to 

attend Department briefings, 

Department-sponsored conferences, and 

other meetings, as requested by OSEP; 

(3) Provide an assurance that the 

project will— 

(i) Reallocate unused travel funds no 

later than the end of the third quarter if 

the kick-off or planning meetings are 

conducted virtually; and 

(ii) Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, participate in a post-award 

teleconference between the OSEP 

project officer and the grantee’s project 

director or other authorized 

representative; 

(4) Include, in the budget, a line item 

for an annual set-aside of five percent of 

the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s intended outcomes, 

as those needs are identified in 

consultation with, and approved by, the 

OSEP project officer. With approval 

from the OSEP project officer, the 

project must reallocate any remaining 

funds from this annual set-aside no later 

than the end of the third quarter of each 

budget period; 

(5) Budget at least 50 percent of the 

grant award for providing targeted and 

intensive TA to States; 

(6) 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; and 

(7) 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13301 

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 Priorities and Requirements: 

We will announce the final priorities 

and requirements in a document in the 

Federal Register. We will determine the 

final priorities and requirements after 

considering public comments on the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

and other information available to the 

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 these proposed priorities 

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 a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise 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.’’ 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 these proposed 

priorities 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 these proposed priorities 

and requirements easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed priorities and 

requirements contain technical terms or 

other wording that interferes with their 

clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priorities and requirements (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 

clarity? 

• Would the proposed priorities and 

requirements be easier to understand if 

we divided them into more (but shorter) 

sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed priorities and requirements in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed priorities and 

requirements easier to understand? If so, 

how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

easier to understand? 

To send any comments about how the 

Department could make these proposed 

priorities 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

these proposed priorities 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 applicants by 

the proposed priorities and 

requirements would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits 

would outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. 

Participation in the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program is voluntary. For this reason, 

the proposed priorities 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 these proposed 

priorities 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 

These proposed priorities and 

requirements contain information 

collection requirements that are 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1820–0028. The proposed 

priorities 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 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. 2024–03631 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2024–0027; FRL–11418– 

01–R3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revision 

Listing and Implementing the 2010 

Primary Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 

Giles County Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (Commonwealth or Virginia). 

This revision consists of an amendment 

to the list of Virginia nonattainment 

areas to include a newly designated 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area. 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2024–0027 at 

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Gordon.Mike@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Serena Nichols, Planning & 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1