Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88185 

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any final 

regulatory action by the FAA. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11J, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated July 31, 2024, and 

effective September 15, 2024, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO NC E5 Windsor, NC [New] 

ECU Health Bertie Hospital Heliport, NC 

(Lat. 35°59′19′′ N, long. 76°55′45′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius 

of ECU Health Bertie Hospital Heliport. 

* * * * * 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on 

November 1, 2024. 

Patrick Young, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25863 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OSERS–0114] 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection—IDEA Data Management 

Center 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes a priority for an 

IDEA Data Management Center, under 

the Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program. The Department 

may use this priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2025 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 

and Part C of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The 

IDEA Data Management Center (Data 

Management Center) will assist States in 

collecting, reporting, and determining 

how to best analyze and use their Part 

B and Part C data to establish and meet 

high expectations for each child with a 

disability by enhancing, streamlining, 

and integrating IDEA Part B data into 

their State longitudinal data systems 

(SLDS), and IDEA Part C data and IDEA 

Part B preschool special education data 

into their early childhood integrated 

data system (ECIDS). A brief summary 

of the proposed rule is available at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2024- 

OSERS-0114. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before January 21, 2025. 

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: 

Amy Bae, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 987–1557. Email: 

Amy.Bae@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. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priority, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

section of the proposed priority that 

each comment addresses. 

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. 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 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88186 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1For more information on the National Center for 

Education Statistics SLDS State Data Capacity 

Survey, please go to https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ 

slds/. 

2For more information on the SLDS Grant 

Program and its intended outcomes, please visit: 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/about_SLDS.asp. 

3See https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section618-data-products-state-level-data-files. 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for the proposed priority. 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 the 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 authorized under 

section 616(i), 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 setaside 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 Further 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, 

Public Law 118–47, 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.’’ Further 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, 

Public Law 118–47, Division D, Title III, 

138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024). 

Assistance Listing Number: 84.373M. 

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

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

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, 

Public Law 118–47, Division D, Title III, 

138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

Proposed Priority: 

This document contains one proposed 

priority. 

IDEA Data Management Center. 

Background: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to establish a TA center to provide TA 

to improve States’ capacity to collect, 

report, analyze, and use high-quality 

IDEA Part B and Part C data (including 

data reported under IDEA sections 616, 

618, and 642) by enhancing, 

streamlining, and integrating IDEA Part 

B data into their SLDS and IDEA Part C 

data and IDEA Part B, preschool special 

education data into their ECIDS. The 

Data Management Center’s work and TA 

will identify applicable requirements 

for, and reflect compliance with, the 

privacy and confidentiality protections 

under Parts B and C of the IDEA and the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act (FERPA). The Data Management 

Center will not provide the Department 

with access to child-level data and will 

further ensure that such data is deidentified, as defined in 34 CFR 

99.31(b)(1). 

Integrating SLDS with IDEA Part B 

data is a complex issue. While a 

majority of States have an SLDS, until 

recently very few of those systems 

integrated IDEA Part B data. 

Specifically, in the IDEA State 

Supplemental Survey in school year 

(SY) 2015–16, only 18 of 60 (30 percent) 

Part B reporting entities responded that 

all their special education data was in 

their SLDS. However, in the 2022 

survey data reported to the National 

Center for Education Statistics through 

the SLDS State Data Capacity Survey,1

40 (71 percent) respondents indicated 

that they now connect Part B data to 

kindergarten-12 data in the SLDS. An 

additional three (5.4 percent) report that 

it is in progress and five (8.9 percent) 

report that it is planned. 

Integrating IDEA Part B data into their 

SLDS adds value.2 It allows States to 

standardize data collected across 

programs, meet Federal reporting 

requirements, provide additional 

information on the participation in 

other programs by children with 

disabilities, and support program 

improvement. 

Currently, most children with 

disabilities are educated in the same 

settings as children without 

disabilities; 3 however, the majority of 

States continue to separate disability 

and special education related data from 

other data collected on students (e.g., 

demographics, assessment data). Some 

States are using separate data 

collections to meet the reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA (e.g., discipline, 

assessment, educational environments) 

rather than including all data elements 

needed for Federal reporting in their 

SLDS. Through interactions with States 

and TA providers around data quality 

needs and challenges, the Department 

has found that programs, districts, and 

State educational agencies (SEAs) are 

using different collection processes to 

gather data for their required data 

submissions, resulting in different 

degrees of reliability in the data 

collected. 

States with fragmented data systems 

are more likely to have missing or 

duplicate data. For example, if a State 

collects and maintains data on 

disciplinary removals of children with 

disabilities in a special education data 

system but maintains data on the 

demographics of all children in another 

data system, the State may not be able 

to accurately match all data on 

disciplinary removals with the 

demographic data needed to meet IDEA 

Part B data collection and reporting 

requirements. Since discipline data is 

used to examine issues related to 

disproportionality affecting children 

with disabilities, inaccurate data or 

incomplete data will impact States’ 

ability to use the data to make 

appropriate programmatic changes 

aimed at addressing exclusionary 

practices within educational settings. 

In addition, States with fragmented 

data systems often lack the capacity to 

cross-validate related data elements. For 

example, if the data on the type of 

statewide assessment in which children 

with disabilities participate is housed in 

one database and the grade in which 

children are enrolled is housed in 

another, the State may not be able to 

accurately match the assessment data to 

the grade-level data to meet the Federal 

reporting requirements, including IDEA 

Part B reporting requirements under 

sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The 

inability to match children with 

disabilities who participated in 

statewide assessments with the 

appropriate grades may result in these 

children with disabilities not being 

included in the accountability system 

and improvement activities may not 

take these children with disabilities into 

consideration. 

Fragmented data systems and 

variations in how programs or districts 

are operationalizing the reporting 

instructions and definitions hinder 

States’ capacity both to collect and 

report valid and reliable data on 

children with disabilities to the 

Secretary and to the public, which is 

specifically required by IDEA sections 

616(b)(2)(B)(i), 616(b)(2)(C)(ii), and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88187 

4Perez, 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_

2021DaSyDataSystemsSurveyFindings_Acc.pdf. 

618(a), and to meet IDEA Part B data 

collection and reporting requirements 

under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. 

Valid and reliable data on children with 

disabilities is crucial for effective 

program planning and evaluation. It 

allows key parties to make informed 

decisions, allocate resources effectively, 

and tailor interventions to meet the 

specific needs of students, ultimately 

leading to improved outcomes. 

States have expressed greater desire 

for TA from the currently funded Data 

Management Center to establish or 

improve their SLDS, exceeding the 

Center’s capacity to serve all of them. 

Although focused TA has been provided 

to 23 targeted States, 28 more await 

targeted TA to integrate their IDEA Part 

B data with their SLDS. 

Similarly, improvements are 

necessary in States’ management, 

collection, coordination, reporting, and 

integration of Part C and Part B 

preschool special education data so that 

high-quality IDEA Part C and Part B 

preschool special education data 

required under sections 618 and 616 of 

IDEA are reported to the Department. 

Beginning with the 2023–24 Part C 

Exiting data, States will be required to 

submit all IDEA section 618 Part C data 

collections through a new submission 

system (EDPass). In previous years, 

States have submitted these data 

through the EDFacts Metadata and 

Process system, which provides 

onscreen data entry tables and fields for 

reporting the IDEA section 618 data. 

The EDPass system will require States to 

build data files based on new file 

specifications and upload those files to 

EDPass. Once uploaded, the State will 

be required to respond to a series of data 

quality checks to ensure the quality of 

their Part C data being submitted to the 

Department. 

As the process to submit the IDEA 

Part C data has evolved and increased 

in complexity due to the move to 

EDPass, more efficient, effective, and 

user-friendly approaches are necessary 

for conducting the early childhood 

IDEA data collection, reporting, and 

submission processes. Improved data 

management and coordination 

processes, as well as the increase of 

linked and integrated child-level data in 

IDEA Part C data systems, IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data 

systems, early care and education 

program data systems, and SLDS for 

school-aged children, are key 

approaches for States in meeting these 

increased expectations around Part C 

data and Part B section 619 data being 

submitted via EDPass. 

States are strongly encouraged to 

establish and implement effective early 

childhood data management and, where 

appropriate, data system coordination 

and integration policies and procedures 

to support program improvement, 

compliance accountability, and Federal 

and public reporting. Developing 

interagency agreements and revising 

policies and procedures (that all meet 

applicable Federal privacy 

requirements) would allow States, 

where appropriate, to coordinate, link, 

or integrate child-level data in IDEA 

Part C data systems and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data 

systems as an important first step, and 

also potentially with other early care 

and education program data. An ECIDS 

could help States identify what works 

best to improve outcomes for young 

children in their States. For instance, an 

ECIDS can provide States with 

information needed to assess the 

characteristics of services that may be 

related to better outcomes for children 

and families or the relationship between 

early childhood settings and early 

childhood outcomes. An ECIDS that 

includes data across various early care 

and education programs could also 

improve child find activities in the State 

by identifying potentially underserved 

populations as well as 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 serve 

young children with disabilities and 

their families, allowing States to 

coordinate better with such programs 

and operate early intervention or 

preschool special education programs 

with a focus on improving outcomes. 

For example, States are working to link 

their universal screening data to SLDS 

and ECIDS in order to increase early 

childhood developmental screening 

rates for young children. 

Building robust ECIDSs that include 

Part C early intervention data and Part 

B preschool special education data 

would help improve IDEA child find 

and transition data collection, reporting, 

and analysis, improve responses to 

critical policy questions, facilitate 

program improvement, and improve 

compliance for IDEA Part C early 

intervention and IDEA Part B preschool 

special education programs. This level 

of coordination and integration would 

help ensure that States report highquality IDEA data to the Department 

and the public. 

Though some improvements have 

been made over the last 10 years in 

linking and integrating IDEA Part C 

early intervention and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data to data 

from early care and education programs, 

K–12 data systems, and the workforce, 

as well as longitudinally over time, the 

percentage of State programs that report 

they can make these linkages remains 

low. Less than 40 percent of IDEA Part 

C early intervention and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education programs 

that responded to a survey 4 in 2021 

reported they can link their child-level 

data to their workforce data. Less than 

30 percent of IDEA Part C early 

intervention programs that responded 

reported that their State links IDEA Part 

C child-level data to Early Head Start, 

Head Start, State Pre-K, child care 

programs, home visiting programs, or 

other early care or education programs. 

Most IDEA Part C early intervention 

programs that responded reported they 

have never linked their IDEA Part C data 

to their IDEA Part B preschool special 

education data. Reasons vary, but the 

most common reasons include 

budgetary constraints and competing 

staffing priorities. 

This proposed priority would directly 

address these capacity-related 

challenges, as well as increased 

expectations and other capacity 

challenges IDEA Part C early 

intervention and IDEA Part B preschool 

special education programs face with 

respect to effectively and efficiently 

collecting, reporting, analyzing, and 

using high-quality IDEA data to improve 

the capacity of States to meet the data 

collection and reporting requirements 

under Parts B and C of IDEA. 

Proposed Priority: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate an IDEA Data 

Management Center (Data Management 

Center). The Data Management Center 

will respond to State needs as States 

determine whether and how to 

coordinate and integrate their IDEA Part 

B and Part C data required to meet the 

data collection requirements in sections 

616 and 618 of IDEA into their 

longitudinal data systems (including 

SLDS and ECIDS) while ensuring 

applicable IDEA and FERPA privacy 

protections are met. This integration 

will improve the capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use highquality IDEA Part B and Part C data to 

establish and meet high expectations for 

each child with a disability. The Data 

Management Center will help States 

address challenges with data 

management procedures and data 

systems architecture and better meet 

current and future IDEA Part B and Part 

C data collection and reporting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88188 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

5For the purposes of these requirements, 

‘‘evidence-based’’ means the proposed project 

component is supported by one or more of strong 

evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, 

or evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as such 

terms are defined in 34 CFR 77.1). 

requirements. The Data Management 

Center’s work will comply with the 

privacy and confidentiality protections 

under IDEA and FERPA. The Data 

Management Center will not provide the 

Department with access to child-level 

data and will further ensure that such 

data is de-identified, as defined in 34 

CFR 99.31(b)(1). 

The Data Management Center must be 

designed to achieve, at a minimum, the 

following expected outcomes: 

(a) Increased capacity of States to use 

interagency agreements or other 

mechanisms to coordinate and integrate 

IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data 

required under sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA within their SLDS while meeting 

the applicable privacy requirements 

under Parts B and C of the IDEA and 

FERPA (which may include developing 

or disseminating TA resources on 

privacy, interagency agreements on data 

sharing and/or data coordination, and 

integration); 

(b) Increased use of IDEA Part B and 

IDEA Part C data within States by 

developing products to allow States to 

report their special education, preschool 

special education, and early 

intervention data to various partners 

(e.g., other State agencies, policymakers, 

school and early care and education 

program personnel, local and State 

school boards, local educational agency 

(LEA) administrators, early care and 

education childhood administrators, 

researchers, charter school authorizers, 

parents and advocates, Indian Tribes, 

and Tribal organizations) through their 

longitudinal data systems; 

(c) Increased number of States that 

use data governance and data 

management procedures to increase 

their capacity to meet the IDEA Part B 

and IDEA Part C reporting requirements 

under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; 

(d) Increased capacity of States to 

utilize their SLDS and ECIDS to collect, 

report, analyze, and use high-quality 

IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data 

(including data required under sections 

616, 618, and 642 of IDEA); 

(e) Increased capacity of States to use 

their SLDS and ECIDS to analyze highquality data on the participation and 

outcomes of children with disabilities 

who receive services under IDEA and 

under Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), to improve IDEA and 

ESEA programs and the outcomes of 

children with disabilities; and 

(f) Increased capacity of States to 

coordinate and use available IDEA Part 

C early intervention data with IDEA Part 

B preschool special education data (and 

to integrate or link such data with 

ECIDS, if applicable) to analyze highquality data on the participation and 

outcomes of infants, toddlers, and 

children with disabilities served under 

IDEA who may also participate in other 

programs and services (e.g., child care, 

Early Head Start, Head Start, publicly 

funded preschool, and home visiting 

programs). 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority, which are: 

(a) Describe, in the narrative section 

of the application under ‘‘Significance,’’ 

how the proposed project will— 

(1) Address State challenges 

associated with State data management 

procedures, data systems architecture, 

and building EDFacts data files and 

reports for timely reporting of the IDEA 

Part B and IDEA Part C data to the 

Department and the public. To meet this 

requirement the applicant must— 

(i) Present applicable national, State, 

or local data demonstrating the 

difficulties that States have encountered 

in the collection and submission of 

valid and reliable IDEA Part B and IDEA 

Part C data; 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

educational and technical issues and 

policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B 

data and IDEA Part C collections and 

EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA 

Part B and IDEA Part C data collections; 

and 

(iii) Present information about the 

current level of implementation of 

integrating IDEA Part B data within 

SLDS and IDEA Part C and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data within 

ECIDs, and the reporting of high-quality 

IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C data to the 

Department and the public. 

(b) Describe, in the narrative section 

of the application under ‘‘Quality of 

project services,’’ how the proposed 

project will— 

(1) 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 that depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, 

and intended outcomes of the proposed 

project; 

(2) 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 website provides 

more information on logic models and 

conceptual frameworks: https://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/ 

central/Resource/100644. 

(3) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based 5 practices 

(EBPs). To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on data 

collection strategies, data management 

procedures, and data systems 

architecture; and 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and EBPs 

in the development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(4) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base on States’ 

data management processes and data 

systems architecture; 

(ii) A plan to provide a range of 

products and services to— 

(A) Improve States’ capacity to report 

high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C data 

required under sections 616, 618, and 

642 of IDEA through their SLDS and 

other applicable data systems; and 

(B) Improve States’ capacity to link 

and integrate (where determined 

appropriate by States) their IDEA Part C 

early intervention and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data with 

data/data systems associated with other 

Federal programs and services that 

support infants, toddlers, and young 

children and their families in order to 

report high-quality IDEA Part C data and 

IDEA Part B preschool special education 

data required under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA. The plan must include, at 

a minimum, how the project will— 

(1) In Years 1 through 5— 

(i) Support, in partnership with the 

Department, the implementation of an 

existing open-source electronic tool to 

assist States in building EDFacts data 

files and reports that can be submitted 

to the Department and made available to 

the public. The tool must utilize 

Common Education Data Standards 

(CEDS) and meet all States’ needs 

associated with reporting the IDEA Part 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88189 

6 ‘‘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. 

7 ‘‘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. 

8 ‘‘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. 

B and Part C data required under 

sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA; 

(ii) Provide maintenance to support 

the appropriate functionality of the 

open-source electronic tool as changes 

are made to data collections, reporting 

requirements, file specifications, and 

CEDS (such as links within the system 

to include TA products developed by 

other Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) and Departmentfunded centers or contractors); 

(iii) Provide TA focused on data 

governance to facilitate the use of the 

open-source electronic tool and training 

to State staff to implement the opensource electronic tool; 

(iv) Revise the CEDS ‘‘Connections’’ to 

calculate metrics needed to report the 

IDEA Part B and Part C data required 

under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; 

(v) Develop other outputs (e.g., 

reports, Application Programming 

Interface, new innovations) of an opensource electronic tool that can support 

reporting by States of IDEA Part B data 

to different partner groups (e.g., LEAs, 

charter schools, legislative branch, 

parents); 

(vi) Implement strategies to support 

the inclusion of other OSEP and 

Department-funded TA centers’ 

products within the open-source 

electronic tool or build connections that 

allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part B data 

efficiently into the other TA products; 

(vii) Support a user group of States 

that are using an open-source electronic 

tool for reporting IDEA Part B and Part 

C data required under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; and 

(viii) Develop products and 

presentations that include tools and 

solutions to challenges in data 

management procedures and data 

system architecture for reporting the 

IDEA Part B and Part C data required 

under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; 

(2) In Years 2 through 5— 

(i) Develop, in partnership with the 

Department, an open-source electronic 

tool to assist States with linking and 

integrating their IDEA Part C early 

intervention and IDEA Part B preschool 

special education data with other data/ 

data systems associated with other 

Federal programs and services that 

support infants, toddlers, and young 

children and their families, in order to 

provide high-quality reporting of the 

IDEA Part C data and IDEA 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 

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; 

(ii) Develop the 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 their families, and 

improving compliance accountability; 

(iii) Provide maintenance to support 

the appropriate functionality of the 

open-source electronic tool as changes 

are made to data reporting requirements 

and CEDS; 

(iv) Provide TA on data governance to 

facilitate the use of the open-source 

electronic tool and training to State staff 

to implement the open-source electronic 

tool; and 

(v) Support 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, 618, 

and 642 of IDEA; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA,6 which must 

identify the intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services, a description of the 

products and services that the Center 

proposes to make available, and the 

expected impact of those products and 

services under this approach; 

(iv) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA,7 which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services, a description of the 

products and services that the Center 

proposes to make available, and the 

expected impact of those 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 

(C) The process by which the 

proposed project will collaborate with 

Department-funded centers (including 

privacy TA centers such as the DaSy 

Center that provides Department-funded 

TA on early childhood data privacy, and 

the Privacy Technical Assistance 

Center) and other federally funded TA 

centers to develop and implement a 

coordinated TA plan when they are 

involved in a State; 

(v) Its proposed approach to intensive, 

sustained TA,8 which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients from a variety of settings and 

geographic distribution, that will 

receive the products and services under 

this approach; 

(B) Its proposed approach to address 

States’ challenges associated with 

integrating IDEA Part B data within 

SLDS and IDEA Part C and IDEA Part B 

preschool special education data within 

ECDIS and to report high-quality IDEA 

Part B and IDEA Part C data to the 

Department and the public, which 

should, at a minimum, include 

providing on-site consultants to SEAs 

and Part C lead agencies to— 

(1) Model and document data 

management and data system 

integration policies, procedures, 

processes, and activities within the 

State; 

(2) Support the State’s use of an opensource electronic tool and provide 

technical solutions to meet Statespecific data needs; 

(3) Develop a sustainability plan for 

the State to maintain the data 

management and data system 

integration work in the future; and 

(4) Support the State’s cybersecurity 

plan in collaboration, to the extent 

appropriate, with the Department’s 

Student Privacy Policy Office and its 

Privacy Technical Assistance Center; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88190 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9A ‘‘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. 

(5) 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, such as nonFederal funds and in-kind 

contributions, to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; and 

(6) Develop a dissemination plan that 

describes how the applicant will 

systematically distribute information, 

products, and services to varied 

intended audiences, using a variety of 

dissemination strategies, to promote 

awareness and use of the Center’s 

products and services. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation or other evidencebuilding,’’ describe how the project will 

develop an evaluation plan in 

consultation with, and to be 

implemented by, a third-party 

evaluator.9 The evaluation plan must— 

(1) Articulate formative and 

summative evaluation questions, 

including important process and 

outcome evaluation questions. These 

questions must be related to the 

project’s proposed logic model required 

under paragraph (b)(2)(ii); 

(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 

Annual Performance Report (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 and quality of 

the 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) Describe, 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 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, 

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 three-day project directors’ 

conference in Washington, DC, during 

each year of the project periods, 

provided that, if the meeting 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; 

and 

(3) 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; 

(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 a new award 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)). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88191 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a document in the Federal Register. We 

will determine the final priority after 

considering public comments on the 

proposed priority 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 this proposed priority, 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 entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise 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 the proposed priority 

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 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed priority clearly stated? 

• Does the proposed priority contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priority (grouping and order of sections, 

use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid 

or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed priority be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed priority in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble be 

more helpful in making the proposed 

priority easier to understand? If so, 

how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed priority easier to understand? 

To send any comments about how the 

Department could make the proposed 

priority 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88192 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

by the proposed priority would be 

limited to paperwork burden related to 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits of the proposed priority would 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. 

Participation in the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program is voluntary. For this reason, 

the proposed priority 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 

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 contains 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1820–0028. The 

proposed priority does 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, 

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 

Department documents 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 Department 

documents 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. 2024–25862 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Parts 14 and 36 

RIN 2900–AS05 

Legal Services, General Counsel, and 

Miscellaneous Claims 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulations governing Legal Services, 

the Office of General Counsel, and 

Miscellaneous Claims to reflect 

nomenclature changes regarding 

employees and groups within the Office 

of General Counsel as well as to make 

other changes intended to further clarify 

and explain various functions and 

procedures within the Office of General 

Counsel. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 6, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov. 

Except as provided below, comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period will be available at 

www.regulations.gov for public viewing, 

inspection, or copying, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post the comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on 

www.regulations.gov as soon as possible 

after they have been received. VA will 

not post on www.regulations.gov public 

comments that make threats to 

individuals or institutions or suggest 

that the commenter will take actions to 

harm an individual. VA encourages 

individuals not to submit duplicative 

comments; however, we will post 

comments from multiple unique 

commenters even if the content is 

identical or nearly identical to other 

comments. Any public comment 

received after the comment period’s 

closing date is considered late and will 

not be considered in the final 

rulemaking. In accordance with the 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act of 2023, a 100 word 

Plain-Language Summary of this 

proposed rule is available at 

Regulations.gov, under RIN 2900–AS05. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gibbs, Executive Director, 

Management, Planning and Analysis, 

Office of General Counsel (026), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–4995. (This is not a 

toll-free telephone number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 38 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 

I, part 14, governs Legal Services, 

General Counsel, and Miscellaneous 

Claims. Executive Order 13563 requires 

agencies to carry out retrospective 

analyses of rules that ‘‘may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome, and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with what has been 

learned.’’ Exec. Order No. 13563, 

section 6, 76 FR 3821, 3822 (Jan. 21, 

2011). After a review of 38 CFR part 14, 

VA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) is 

proposing revisions to reflect 

nomenclature changes to the names of 

certain Office of General Counsel offices 

and the employees in those offices. The 

proposed revisions would also make 

changes in certain policies, procedures, 

and authorities. In the amendatory text 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1