Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 15525 

■ 61. On page 89244, the third column, 

the entry for 1.45V–6(c)(5) is corrected 

to read, ‘‘Example 5: Retrofit of an 

existing facility (80/20 Rule) and 

coordination with section 45Q credit 

previously allowed.’’. 

§ 1.45V–1 [Corrected] 

■ 62. On page 89245, the second 

column, the third line of paragraph 

(a)(7)(iii) is corrected to read, ‘‘addition 

to the production of qualified clean’’. 

■ 63. On page 89245, the third column, 

in the eleventh and twelfth lines of 

paragraph (a)(7)(iv) remove the language 

‘‘the regulations in this part under 

section 45V’’ and add in its place the 

language ‘‘the section 45V regulations’’. 

■ 64. On page 89246, the first column, 

the second and third lines of paragraph 

(9)(i)(A) are corrected to read, ‘‘section 

638(1) of the Code) or a U.S. territory, 

which, for purposes of’’. 

■ 65. On page 89246, first column, in 

the fourth and fifth lines of paragraph 

(a)(9)(i)(A) remove the language ‘‘the 

regulations in this part under section 

45V’’ and add in its place the language 

‘‘the section 45V regulations’’. 

§ 1.45V–2 [Corrected] 

■ 66. On page 89246, the third column, 

the sixth line from the bottom of 

paragraph (a) is corrected to read, ‘‘Rule 

is satisfied will not be treated as’’. 

■ 67. On page 89246, the third column, 

the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1) 

is corrected to read, ‘‘A purpose of 

section 45V and the regulations under 

section 45V (and so much of sections 

6417 and 6418 and the regulations 

thereunder related to the section 45V 

credit) is to provide taxpayers an 

incentive to produce qualified clean 

hydrogen for a productive use.’’. 

■ 68. On page 89246, the third column, 

in the second and third lines from the 

bottom of paragraph (b)(1) remove the 

language ‘‘regulations in this part under 

section 45V of the Code’’ and add in its 

place the language ‘‘section 45V 

regulations’’. 

■ 69. On page 89247, the first column, 

the fourth line from the bottom of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) is corrected to read, 

‘‘of the section 45V credit by claiming’’. 

■ 70. On page 89247, the first column, 

the second line from the bottom of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) is corrected to read, 

‘‘credit through an election under’’. 

§ 1.45V–4 [Corrected] 

■ 71. On page 89248, the first column, 

the fifth line from the top of paragraph 

(c)(3) is corrected to read, ‘‘the DOE’s 

analytical assessment of the’’. 

■ 72. On page 89248, the first column, 

the second line from the bottom of 

paragraph (c)(3) is corrected to read, 

‘‘Clean Hydrogen Production Credit, or 

any successor form(s), to’’. 

■ 73. On page 89248, the first column, 

the sixth and seventh lines of paragraph 

(c)(4) are corrected to read, ‘‘be deemed 

accepted. A taxpayer may rely upon an 

emissions value’’. 

■ 74. On page 89248, the first column, 

in the second and third lines from the 

bottom of paragraph (c)(5), remove the 

language ‘‘regulations in this part under 

section 45V’’ and add in its place the 

language ‘‘section 45V regulations’’. 

■ 75. On page 89248, the second 

column, the heading of paragraph (d) is 

corrected to read, ‘‘Use of energy 

attribute certificates (EACs)– ‘‘. 

■ 76. On page 89248, the second 

column, the seventh and eighth lines of 

paragraph (d)(1) are corrected to read, 

‘‘Secretary determines a PER for 

hydrogen produced at’’. 

■ 77. On page 89248, the third column, 

the twelfth line of paragraph (d)(1) is 

corrected to read, ‘‘electricity used to 

produce hydrogen’’. 

■ 78. On page 89249, the second 

column, fifth line from the bottom of 

paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C) is corrected to 

read, ‘‘megawatt hours (MWh) (2 MW’’. 

■ 79. On page 89249, the second 

column, the second line from the 

bottom of paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C) is 

corrected to read, ‘‘hour of Power 

Plant’s production’’. 

§ 1.45V–5 [Corrected] 

■ 80. On page 89250, the second 

column, the first line of paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii) is corrected to read, ‘‘The 

qualified verifier has not been a’’. 

§ 1.45V–6 [Corrected] 

■ 81. On page 89251, the second 

column, the heading of paragraph (b) is 

corrected to read, ‘‘Retrofit of an 

existing facility (80/20 Rule). 

■ 82. On page 89252, the first column, 

the eighteenth and nineteenth lines of 

paragraph (c)(3)(i) are corrected to read, 

‘‘respect to the new CCE located at 

Facility Y.’’. 

■ 83. On page 89252, the first column, 

the heading of paragraph (c)(4) is 

corrected to read ‘‘Example 4: Retrofit of 

an existing facilit (80/20 Rule)—’’. 

■ 84. On page 89252, the first column, 

the heading of paragraph (c)(5) is 

corrected to read, ‘‘Example 5: Retrofit 

of an existing facility (80/20 Rule) and 

coordination with section 45Q credit 

previously allowed—’’. 

§ 1.48–15 [Corrected] 

■ 85. On page 89252, the third column, 

the fourth line from the bottom of 

paragraph (d)(2) is corrected to read, 

‘‘successor form(s), with its 

partnership’’. 

■ 86. On page 89254, the first and 

second columns, in paragraph (f)(5)(i) 

the language ‘‘0.44kg/CO2e’’ is corrected 

to read, ‘‘0.44kg of CO2e’’, wherever it 

appears. 

■ 87. On page 89254, the first and 

second columns, in paragraph (f)(5)(i) 

the language ‘‘1.4kg/CO2e’’ is corrected 

to read, ‘‘1.4kg of CO2e’’, wherever it 

appears. 

■ On page 89254, the second column, 

the fifth line of paragraph (f)(5)(ii) is 

corrected to read, ‘‘0.44kg of CO2e per 

kilogram of hydrogen, which is the rate 

specified’’. 

■ 88. On page 89254, the third column, 

the sixth line from the bottom of 

paragraph (g) is corrected to read, 

‘‘definition of a specified clean’’. 

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor, 

Section Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Section, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure 

and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2024–04304 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OSERS–0011] 

Proposed Priority and Requirements— 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection—National Technical 

Assistance Center To Improve State 

Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, 

and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority and 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes a priority and 

requirements for a National Technical 

Assistance Center to Improve State 

Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, 

and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data 

(Center) under the Technical Assistance 

on State Data Collection program, 

Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 

84.373Y. The Department may use this 

priority and these requirements for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus attention on an identified national 

need to provide technical assistance 

(TA) to improve the capacity of States 

to meet the data collection requirements 

under Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This 

Center would support States in 

collecting, reporting, and determining 

how to best analyze and use their data 

and would customize its TA to meet 

each State’s specific needs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
15526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 20, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, 

if you require an accommodation or 

cannot otherwise submit your 

comments via www.regulations.gov, 

please contact the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department 

will not accept comments submitted by 

fax or by email, or comments submitted 

after the comment period closes. To 

ensure the Department does not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

Note: The Department’s policy is generally 

to make comments received from members of 

the public available for public viewing in 

their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to include in 

their comments only information that they 

wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6391. Email: 

Richelle.Davis@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priority and requirements. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the final 

priority and requirements, we urge you 

to identify clearly the specific provision 

of the proposed priority or requirement 

that each comment addresses. 

Directed Question: Given that 

Congress has not yet enacted an 

appropriation for FY 2024, the 

Department is still awaiting the 

finalization of its FY 2024 

appropriations for IDEA, the 

Department is considering whether it 

may use a phased-in funding approach 

to this investment, with smaller awards 

in the initial years of the project and 

higher awards in later years. The 

Department requests specific public 

comment on the extent to which such 

an approach would require substantive 

changes to the proposed priority and 

whether there are particular areas of 

focus (e.g., data sharing templates, data 

analyses tools) that may benefit from a 

phased-in approach. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 

overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

the proposed priority and requirements. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect public comments about 

the proposed priority and requirements 

by accessing Regulations.gov. To inspect 

comments in person, please contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for the proposed priority and 

requirements. If you want to schedule 

an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program is to improve the 

capacity of States to meet IDEA data 

collection and reporting requirements. 

Funding for the program is authorized 

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

gives the Secretary authority to reserve 

not more than one-half of one percent of 

the amounts appropriated under Part B 

for each fiscal year to provide TA 

activities, where needed, to improve the 

capacity of States to meet the data 

collection and reporting requirements 

under Parts B and C of IDEA. The 

maximum amount the Secretary may 

reserve under this set-aside for any 

fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively 

adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 

616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to 

review the data collection and analysis 

capacity of States to ensure that data 

and information determined necessary 

for implementation of section 616 of 

IDEA are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported to the Secretary. It 

also requires the Secretary to provide 

TA, where needed, to improve the 

capacity of States to meet the data 

collection requirements, which include 

the data collection and reporting 

requirements in sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 

117–328, gives the Secretary authority 

to use funds reserved under section 

611(c) of IDEA to ‘‘administer and carry 

out other services and activities to 

improve data collection, coordination, 

quality, and use under Parts B and C of 

the IDEA.’’ Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2023, Public Law 117–328, 

Division H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 

4891 (2022). 

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

1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442; 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, 

Public Law 117–328, Division H, Title 

III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

Proposed Priority 

This document contains one proposed 

priority. 

National Technical Assistance Center 

to Improve State Capacity to Collect, 

Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 

IDEA Part B Data. 

Background: 

We are proposing the same priority 

that we established through a notice of 

final priority published in the Federal 

Register on August 12, 2019 (84 FR 

39736), with three changes. First, the 

proposed priority and requirements do 

not contain the requirement in 

paragraph (d)(5) that the applicant 

demonstrate how it will ensure that it 

will recover the lesser of: (a) Its actual 

indirect costs as determined by the 

grantee’s negotiated indirect cost rate 

agreement with its cognizant Federal 

agency; and (b) 40 percent of its 

modified total direct cost base as 

defined in 2 CFR 200.1, effectively 

instituting an indirect cost cap. The 

Department proposes to remove and has 

not included this indirect cost cap in 

the proposed priority because we found 

that it led to a decrease in the number 

of applicants, which limited 

competition. Further, the purpose of the 

indirect cost cap was to maximize the 

amount of grant funds used to provide 

TA to States to improve their capacity 

to meet the IDEA data collection and 

reporting requirements. However, we 

found that was not the case, because the 

indirect cost cap did not result in a 

decrease in the amount of indirect costs 

charged, and was thus not needed. 

Second, expected outcome (e) in the 

proposed priority and requirements has 

been edited to include ‘‘parents and 

families’’ in the parenthetical providing 

examples of local consumers. The 

Department proposes to include this 

language in recognition that families 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 15527 

may also be local consumers of data. 

Third, paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(F) of the 

application and administrative 

requirements in the proposed priority 

and requirements has been edited to 

include a parenthetical providing 

examples of the Department-funded TA 

projects with whom this Center will be 

expected to coordinate and collaborate. 

The Department proposes to include 

this parenthetical in order to highlight 

the Department-funded TA centers 

which also provide TA on the IDEA 

data. 

The Department reviewed the data 

collection and analysis capacity of 

States to ensure that IDEA data are being 

collected and accurately reported to the 

Department and the public. Specifically, 

the Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) reviewed and 

analyzed information from multiple 

sources, including data quality reviews 

conducted by OSEP to evaluate the 

accuracy of section 618 data, 

Department-developed edit check 

reports, written and oral communication 

with States through the data quality 

process, and State-initiated requests for 

TA. The Department’s assessment is that 

States have varying needs for TA to 

improve their IDEA data collection 

capacity and their ability to ensure 

IDEA data are accurate and can be 

reported to the Department and the 

public. States also need ongoing TA to 

help them improve their capacity to 

analyze and use IDEA data so they can 

provide more accurate information 

about their efforts to improve 

implementation of IDEA and more 

accurately target future improvement 

activities in their State Systemic 

Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted as 

part of their State Performance Plans/ 

Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/ 

APRs). 

The ongoing need for TA to improve 

State data collection and analysis 

capacity is compounded by the 

increased turnover in State IDEA Part B 

Data Managers (data managers). Since 

2019, half of the States and entities 

required to submit IDEA section 618 

data have experienced the turnover of at 

least one data manager, with one State 

experiencing six new data managers 

during this time. In all, 50 new data 

managers have begun since 2019. This 

consistent turnover in data managers 

heightens the need for continued TA to 

support both new and experienced data 

managers as they work to collect, report, 

analyze, and use accurate IDEA data. 

To meet the array of complex 

challenges regarding the collection, 

reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA 

data by States, OSEP proposes a priority 

to establish and operate the National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Capacity to Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 

Data. 

Proposed Priority: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate the National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Capacity to Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 

Data (Data Center). 

The Data Center will provide TA to 

help States better meet current and 

future IDEA Part B data collection and 

reporting requirements, improve data 

quality, and analyze and use section 

616, section 618, and other IDEA data 

(e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) 

to identify and address programmatic 

strengths and areas for improvement. 

This Data Center will focus on 

providing TA on collecting, reporting, 

analyzing, and using Part B data on 

children with disabilities ages 3 through 

21 required under sections 616 and 618 

of IDEA. However, the Data Center will 

not provide TA on Part B data required 

under section 616 of IDEA for Indicators 

B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12 (Early 

Childhood Transition); TA on 

collecting, reporting, analyzing, and 

using Part B data associated with 

children with disabilities ages 3 through 

5 for these indicators will be provided 

by the National IDEA Technical 

Assistance Center on Early Childhood 

Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z. 

The Center must achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: 

(a) Improved State data infrastructure 

by coordinating and promoting 

communication and effective data 

governance strategies among relevant 

State offices, including State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and 

schools to improve the quality of IDEA 

data required under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; 

(b) Increased capacity of States to 

submit accurate and timely data, to 

enhance current State validation 

procedures, and to prevent future errors 

in State-reported IDEA Part B data; 

(c) Improved capacity of States to 

meet the data collection and reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA by addressing personnel 

training needs, developing effective 

tools (e.g., training modules) and 

resources (e.g., documentation of State 

data processes), and providing in-person 

and virtual opportunities for cross-State 

collaboration about data collection and 

reporting requirements that States can 

use to train personnel in schools, 

programs, agencies, and districts; 

(d) Improved capacity of SEAs, and 

LEAs in collaboration with SEAs, to 

collect, report, analyze, and use both 

SEA and LEA IDEA data to identify 

programmatic strengths and areas for 

improvement, address root causes of 

poor performance towards outcomes, 

and evaluate progress towards 

outcomes; 

(e) Improved IDEA data validation by 

using results from data reviews 

conducted by the Department to work 

with States to generate tools that can be 

used by States to lead to improvements 

in the validity and reliability of data 

required by IDEA and enable States to 

communicate accurate data to local 

consumers (e.g., parents and families, 

school boards, the general public); and 

(f) Increased capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use highquality IDEA Part B data. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this proposed priority, 

applicants must meet the application 

and administrative requirements in this 

proposed priority, which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed 

project will— 

(1) Address the capacity needs of 

SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B 

data collection and reporting 

requirements and to increase their 

capacity to analyze and use section 616 

and section 618 data as both a means of 

improving data quality and identifying 

programmatic strengths and areas for 

improvement. To meet this requirement 

the applicant must— 

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

educational issues and policy initiatives 

about IDEA Part B data collection and 

reporting requirements and knowledge 

of State and local data collection 

systems, as appropriate; 

(ii) Present applicable national, State, 

and local data to demonstrate the 

capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to 

meet IDEA Part B data collection and 

reporting requirements and use section 

616 and section 618 data as a means of 

both improving data quality and 

identifying programmatic strengths and 

areas for improvement; and 

(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are 

currently meeting IDEA Part B data 

collection and reporting requirements 

and use section 616 and section 618 

data as a means of both improving data 

quality and identifying programmatic 

strengths and areas for improvement. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
15528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1For purposes of these requirements,‘‘evidencebased practices’’ (EBPs) means, at a minimum, 

demonstrating a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1) based on high-quality research findings or 

positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or 

intervention is likely to improve student outcomes 

or other relevant outcomes. 

2 ‘‘Universal, general TA’’ means TA and 

information provided to independent users through 

their own initiative, resulting in minimal 

interaction with TA center staff and including onetime, invited or offered conference presentations by 

TA center staff. This category of TA also includes 

information or products, such as newsletters, 

guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded 

from the TA center’s website by independent users. 

Brief communications by TA center staff with 

recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 

considered universal, general TA. 

3 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA services 

based on needs common to multiple recipients and 

not extensively individualized. A relationship is 

established between the TA recipient and one or 

more TA center staff. This category of TA includes 

one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 

strategic planning or hosting regional or national 

conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive events that extend over a period of time, 

such as facilitating a series of conference calls on 

single or multiple topics that are designed around 

the needs of the recipients. Facilitating 

communities of practice can also be considered 

targeted, specialized TA. 

4 ‘‘Intensive, sustained TA’’ means TA services 

often provided on-site and requiring a stable, 

ongoing relationship between the TA center staff 

and the TA recipient. ‘‘TA services’’ are defined as 

negotiated series of activities designed to reach a 

valued outcome. This category of TA should result 

in changes to policy, program, practice, or 

operations that support increased recipient capacity 

or improved outcomes at one or more systems 

levels. 

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment 

for members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Identify the needs of the intended 

recipients for TA and information; and 

(ii) Ensure that products and services 

meet the needs of the intended 

recipients of the grant; 

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model 

(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which 

the proposed project will achieve its 

intended outcomes, which depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, 

and intended outcomes of the proposed 

project; 

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and 

provide a copy in Appendix A) to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or 

theories, as well as the presumed 

relationships or linkages among these 

variables, and any empirical support for 

this framework; 

Note: The following websites provide more 

information on logic models and conceptual 

frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/ 

sites/default/files/2021-12/Conceptual

Framework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideas

thatwork.org/resources-grantees/programareas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-andconceptual-framework. 

(4) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based practices 

(EBPs).1 To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on the 

capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report and 

use data, specifically section 616 and 

section 618 data, as both a means of 

improving data quality and identifying 

strengths and areas for improvement; 

and 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and EBPs 

in the development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(5) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify and 

develop the knowledge base on the 

capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to 

meet IDEA Part B data collection and 

reporting requirements and SEA and 

LEA analysis and use of sections 616 

and 618 data as a means of both 

improving data quality and identifying 

programmatic strengths and areas for 

improvement; 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA,2 which must 

identify the intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA,3 which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; and 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of potential TA recipients 

to work with the project, assessing, at a 

minimum, their current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the local level; and 

(iv) Its proposed approach to 

intensive, sustained TA,4 which must 

identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of SEA personnel to work 

with the project, including their 

commitment to the initiative, alignment 

of the initiative to their needs, current 

infrastructure, available resources, and 

ability to build capacity at the SEA and 

LEA levels; 

(C) Its proposed approach to 

prioritizing TA recipients with a 

primary focus on meeting the needs of 

States with known ongoing data quality 

issues, as measured by OSEP’s review of 

the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and 

618 data; 

(D) Its proposed plan for assisting 

SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction with 

SEAs) to build or enhance training 

systems related to the IDEA Part B data 

collection and reporting requirements 

that include professional development 

based on adult learning principles and 

coaching; 

(E) Its proposed plan for working with 

appropriate levels of the education 

system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA 

providers, LEAs, schools, and families) 

to ensure that there is communication 

between each level and that there are 

systems in place to support the capacity 

needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet Part B 

data collection and reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of the IDEA; and 

(F) Its proposed plan for collaborating 

and coordinating with Departmentfunded TA investments (e.g., the Center 

funded under 84.373Z, the Center for 

IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center for 

the Integration of IDEA Data, the Data 

Center to Address Significant 

Disproportionality, and the Weiss 

Center) and Institute of Education 

Sciences/National Center for Education 

Statistics research and development 

investments, where appropriate, in 

order to align complementary work and 

jointly develop and implement products 

and services to meet the purposes of this 

priority; and 

(6) Develop products and implement 

services that maximize efficiency. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

use non-project resources to achieve the 

intended project outcomes. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation,’’ include an 

evaluation plan for the project 

developed in consultation with and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 15529 

5A ‘‘third-party’’ evaluator is an independent and 

impartial program evaluator who is contracted by 

the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the 

project. This evaluator must not have participated 

in the development or implementation of any 

project activities, except for the evaluation 

activities, nor have any financial interest in the 

outcome of the evaluation. 

implemented by a third-party 

evaluator.5 The evaluation plan must— 

(1) Articulate formative and 

summative evaluation questions, 

including important process and 

outcome evaluation questions. These 

questions should be related to the 

project’s proposed logic model required 

in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these 

application and administrative 

requirements; 

(2) Describe how progress in and 

fidelity of implementation, as well as 

project outcomes, will be measured to 

answer the evaluation questions. 

Specify the measures and associated 

instruments or sources for data 

appropriate to the evaluation questions. 

Include information regarding reliability 

and validity of measures where 

appropriate; 

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing 

data and how data collected as part of 

this plan will be used to inform and 

improve service delivery over the course 

of the project and to refine the proposed 

logic model and evaluation plan, 

including subsequent data collection; 

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting 

the evaluation and include staff 

assignments for completing the plan. 

The timeline must indicate that the data 

will be available annually for the APR 

and at the end of Year 2 for the review 

process; and 

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each 

budget year to cover the costs of 

developing or refining the evaluation 

plan in consultation with a third-party 

evaluator, as well as the costs associated 

with the implementation of the 

evaluation plan by the third-party 

evaluator. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of resources and quality of 

project personnel,’’ how— 

(1) The proposed project will 

encourage applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 

and experience to carry out the 

proposed activities and achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits, and funds will be spent in a 

way that increases their efficiency and 

cost-effectiveness, including by 

reducing waste or achieving better 

outcomes. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the management plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated to the project and how these 

allocations are appropriate and adequate 

to achieve the project’s intended 

outcomes; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality, 

relevant, and useful to recipients; and 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives, 

including those of families, educators, 

TA providers, researchers, and policy 

makers, among others, in its 

development and operation. 

(f) Address the following application 

requirements: 

(1) Include, in Appendix A, 

personnel-loading charts and timelines, 

as applicable, to illustrate the 

management plan described in the 

narrative; 

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance 

at the following: 

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off 

meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt 

of the award, and an annual planning 

meeting in Washington, DC, with the 

OSEP project officer and other relevant 

staff during each subsequent year of the 

project period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference must be 

held between the OSEP project officer and 

the grantee’s project director or other 

authorized representative; 

(ii) A two and one-half day project 

directors’ conference in Washington, 

DC, during each year of the project 

period; and 

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to 

attend Department briefings, 

Department-sponsored conferences, and 

other meetings, as requested by OSEP; 

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

for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of 

the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s intended outcomes, 

as those needs are identified in 

consultation with, and approved by, the 

OSEP project officer. With approval 

from the OSEP project officer, the 

project must reallocate any remaining 

funds from this annual set-aside no later 

than the end of the third quarter of each 

budget period; 

(4) Provide an assurance that it will 

maintain a high-quality website, with an 

easy-to-navigate design, that meets 

government or industry-recognized 

standards for accessibility; 

(5) Include, in Appendix A, an 

assurance to assist OSEP with the 

transfer of pertinent resources and 

products and to maintain the continuity 

of services to States during the 

transition to this new award period and 

at the end of this award period, as 

appropriate; and 

(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the 

grant award for providing targeted and 

intensive TA to States. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority and Requirements 

We will announce the final priority 

and requirements in a document in the 

Federal Register. We will determine the 

final priority and requirements after 

considering responses to this document 

and other information available to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
15530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Department. This document does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this proposed priority and one or more 

of these requirements, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) determines whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $200 million or more 

(adjusted every three years by the 

Administrator of Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for 

changes in gross domestic product); or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, territorial, or Tribal 

governments or communities; 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

for which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

this Executive order, as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ OIRA has 

emphasized that these techniques may 

include ‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ 

We are issuing the proposed priority 

and requirements only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with these Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Secretary invites comments on 

how to make the proposed priority and 

requirements easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed priority and requirements 

clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed priority and 

requirements contain technical terms or 

other wording that interferes with their 

clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priority and requirements (grouping and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 

clarity? 

• Would the proposed priority and 

requirements be easier to understand if 

we divided them into more (but shorter) 

sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed priority and requirements in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed priority and 

requirements easier to understand? If so, 

how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed priority and requirements 

easier to understand? 

To send any comments about how the 

Department could make the proposed 

priority and requirements easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

the proposed priority and requirements 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action would affect are LEAs, 

including charter schools that operate as 

LEAs under State law; institutions of 

higher education; other public agencies; 

private nonprofit organizations; freely 

associated States and outlying areas; 

Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; 

and for-profit organizations. We believe 

that the costs imposed on an applicant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 15531 

by the proposed priority and 

requirements would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

the proposed priority and requirements 

would outweigh any costs incurred by 

the applicants. 

Participation in the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program is voluntary. For this reason, 

the proposed priority and requirements 

would impose no burden on small 

entities unless they applied for funding 

under the program. We expect that in 

determining whether to apply for 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program funds, an eligible 

entity would evaluate the requirements 

of preparing an application and any 

associated costs and weigh them against 

the benefits likely to be achieved by 

receiving a Technical Assistance on 

State Data Collection program grant. An 

eligible entity probably would apply 

only if it determines that the likely 

benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 

application. 

We believe that the proposed priority 

and requirements would not impose any 

additional burden on a small entity 

applying for a grant than the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. We invite 

comments from eligible small entities as 

to whether they believe this proposed 

regulatory action would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, request evidence to support 

that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The proposed priority and 

requirements contain information 

collection requirements that are 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1820–0028. The proposed 

priority and requirements do not affect 

the currently approved data collection. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document and a copy of the 

application package in an accessible 

format. The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Glenna Wright-Gallo, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04437 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 42 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2020–0060] 

RIN 0651–AD50 

Motion To Amend Practice and 

Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under 

the America Invents Act Before the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

AGENCY: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) 

proposes to update its rules governing 

amendment practice in trial proceedings 

under the Leahy-Smith America Invents 

Act (AIA) to make permanent certain 

provisions of the Office’s motion to 

amend pilot program (MTA pilot 

program) and to revise the rules that 

allocate burdens of persuasion in 

connection with motions to amend 

(MTAs). The Office proposes to revise 

its rules of practice to provide for 

issuance of preliminary guidance in 

response to an MTA and to provide a 

patent owner with the option for filing 

one additional revised MTA. Further, 

the Office proposes to revise the rules to 

clarify that a preponderance of evidence 

standard applies to any new ground of 

unpatentability raised by the Board and 

to clarify that when exercising the 

discretion to grant or deny an MTA or 

to raise a new ground of unpatentability, 

the Board may consider all evidence of 

record in the proceeding, including 

evidence identified through a prior art 

search conducted by the Office at the 

Board’s request and added to the record. 

These rules better ensure the Office’s 

role of issuing robust and reliable 

patents, and the predictability and 

certainty of post-grant trial proceedings 

before the Board. These changes would 

apply to the existing consolidated set of 

rules relating to the Office trial practice 

for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant 

review (PGR), and derivation 

proceedings that implemented 

provisions of the AIA providing for 

trials before the Office. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, 

commenters must submit written 

comments on or before May 3, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, comments must be submitted 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at https://www.regulations.gov. To 

submit comments via the portal, enter 

docket number PTO–P–2020–0060 on 

the home page and select ‘‘search.’’ The 

site will provide a search results page 

listing all documents associated with 

this docket. Find a reference to this 

proposed rulemaking and select the 

‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the required 

fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in ADOBE®

portable document format or 

MICROSOFT WORD® format. Because 

comments will be made available for 

public inspection, information that the 

submitter does not desire to make 

public, such as an address or phone 

number, should not be included in the 

comments. 

Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(https://www.regulations.gov) for 

additional instructions on providing 

comments via the portal. If the 

electronic submission of comments is 

not feasible due to lack of access to a 

computer and/or the internet, please 

contact the USPTO using the contact 

information below for special 

instructions regarding how to submit 

comments by mail or by hand delivery, 

based upon the public’s ability to obtain 

access to USPTO facilities at the time. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS