45346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1For additional information regarding CSI, see: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-17/pdf/2014- 

14154.pdf. 

remain in the closed position and need 

not open for maritime traffic from 7:30 

a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on September 7, 

2014. The bridge shall operate in 

accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all 

other times. Waterway usage on this 

stretch of the Willamette River includes 

vessels ranging from commercial tug 

and barge to small pleasure craft. 

Vessels able to pass through the bridge 

in the closed positions may do so at any 

time. The bridge will be able to open for 

emergencies and there is no immediate 

alternate route for vessels to pass. The 

Coast Guard will also inform the users 

of the waterways through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessels can arrange their 

transits to minimize any impact caused 

by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: July 24, 2014. 

Steven M. Fischer, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18370 Filed 8–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.373M.] 

Final Priority; Technical Assistance on 

State Data Collection—IDEA Data 

Management Center 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 

announces a priority under the 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. We take this action to 

fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate an IDEA Data 

Management Center (Center) that will 

provide technical assistance (TA) to 

improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). 

DATES: This priority is effective 

September 4, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4071, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2600. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6028 or by email: 

Meredith.Miceli@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 

Program: The purpose of the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program is to improve the capacity of 

States to meet the IDEA data collection 

and reporting requirements. Funding for 

the program is authorized under section 

611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 

Secretary the authority to reserve funds 

appropriated under Part B of the IDEA 

to provide TA activities authorized 

under section 616(i) of IDEA. Section 

616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to 

review the data collection and analysis 

capacity of States to ensure that data 

and information determined necessary 

for implementation of IDEA section 616 

are collected, analyzed, and accurately 

reported to the Secretary. It also requires 

the Secretary to provide TA, where 

needed, to improve the capacity of 

States to meet the data collection 

requirements under IDEA Parts B and C, 

which include the data collection 

requirements in IDEA sections 616 and 

618. 

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

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

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this competition in the 

Federal Register on April 17, 2014 (79 

FR 21663). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing this particular priority. 

Except for minor editorial and technical 

revisions (noted below), there are no 

differences between the proposed 

priority and this final priority. We made 

these minor technical revisions: 

(a) Clarified the types of supports and 

TA the Center must provide when 

assisting States in the use of the open 

source tools developed, as described in 

subsection (b) of the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination Activities 

section of this priority; 

(b) Added the Center on Systemic 

Improvement (CSI) (if funded) 1 to the 

list of Department-funded projects that 

the Center must communicate and 

collaborate with on an ongoing basis, as 

described in subsection (a) of the 

Coordination Activities section of this 

priority; 

(c) Added application requirement 

(b)(4)(ii), which requires applicants to 

demonstrate how the Center will 

support State staff in taking a leadership 

role in restructuring and aligning data 

systems within States that are receiving 

TA from the Center; and 

(d) Revised application requirement 

(f)(4)(ii), which requires applicants to 

budget for a two and one-half day 

project directors’ meeting in 

Washington, DC, to occur every other 

year beginning with the meeting 

scheduled for Summer, 2016. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, three parties submitted 

comments on the proposed priority. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes, or 

comments not directly related to the 

proposed priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

Comment: Three commenters 

indicated there was overlap between the 

Center’s activities and the activities of 

the IDEA Data Center (IDC) and the 

Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data 

Systems (DaSy). 

Discussion: We do not agree that there 

is overlap between the Center’s 

activities and the activities of IDC and 

DaSy. The Center will focus on: (1) 

Providing TA to States to improve their 

data management procedures and data 

systems architecture to build data files 

and reports to improve States’ capacity 

to meet the Part B reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; and (2) improving States’ 

capacity to work with source systems 

(e.g., statewide longitudinal data 

systems (SLDS)) to report high-quality 

data as required under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA. The other data centers (IDC 

and DaSY) funded by the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) do 

not address the need to assist States in 

restructuring their existing, often 

fragmented, data systems and in 

aligning their data collection for 

students with disabilities with their data 

collection for the general student 

population in the SLDS so that States 

can improve the validity and reliability 

of the data they report to the Secretary 

and the public as required under section 

616 and 618 of IDEA. The IDC is 

focused on assisting States with 

developing necessary data validation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 45347 

2 ‘‘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. 

processes and procedures to ensure 

high-quality data submissions to OSEP, 

but does not work on data management 

or system architecture. DaSy provides 

TA to States to support Part C and Part 

B State preschool programs’ 

participation in the development or 

enhancement of integrated early 

childhood data systems. Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters stressed 

the importance of including general 

education staff in efforts to restructure 

and align data systems within the State; 

and one commenter indicated that 

States, rather than an OSEP-funded 

center, should take the lead in these 

efforts. 

Discussion: We agree it is important to 

include general education staff in the 

restructuring and alignment of data 

systems within the State. For this 

reason, we are requiring the Center to 

collaborate and coordinate with the 

State SLDS programs. Additionally, we 

are requiring the Center to use the 

Common Education Data Standards 

(CEDS) that the Department has 

coordinated the development of in 

collaboration with States and local 

school districts. We anticipate that this 

Center will help special education staff 

engage and work with the general 

education and SLDS staff within their 

States to reach the goal of using SLDS 

to report high-quality IDEA data. We 

also agree that States can and should 

lead these efforts and have revised the 

priority to clarify their role. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii) of the application requirements 

of the priority to require that applicants 

describe how the Center will support 

State staff in taking a leadership role in 

restructuring and aligning data systems 

within the States that are receiving TA 

from the Center. 

Comment: Two commenters noted the 

significant effort and time a State would 

need to invest in order to appropriately 

use an open source tool. These 

commenters noted that States would 

need to transfer data into a data store 

from which an EDFacts file could be 

created with the open source tool. They 

stressed that each State would need to 

get its data into a uniform file structure 

in order for the generic code to create 

the EDFacts files. In addition, these 

commenters questioned whether the 

open source tool would be worth the 

amount of time and money it would 

take to create it. 

Discussion: We anticipate that the 

Center will provide TA on preparing 

State data for use with open source tools 

and that this assistance will be highly 

valued by many States and, therefore, an 

excellent use of Federal funds. State 

utilization of the open source tools will 

be on a voluntary basis. 

We expect that the open source tools 

will be based on CEDS. CEDS will 

provide a common vocabulary and data 

model for all States to use in order to 

make the open source tools accessible. 

The Center will assist States in mapping 

their data systems to CEDS in order to 

use the open source tool. We have 

revised the priority to clarify that the 

Center must provide this assistance. 

Changes: In paragraph (b)(3) of the 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Activities section of the 

priority, we have added, as a required 

activity, that the Center assist States in 

preparing their data for use of the open 

source tools that are developed under 

this priority. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Center work with 

CSI to provide TA to States on using the 

data systems developed or refined by 

the proposed Center’s work in the 

development of their State Systemic 

Improvement Plans (SSIP). 

Discussion: We agree that the IDEA 

Data Management Center should 

collaborate and coordinate with CSI (if 

funded) to further promote the use of 

high-quality IDEA data. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to include CSI in the list of Departmentfunded projects that the Center will 

communicate and collaborate with on 

an ongoing basis. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Center work with 

the Department to integrate and align 

the various reporting systems as a way 

to improve the overall quality of the 

data and facilitate use of the data. 

Discussion: We understand the 

commenter’s suggestion. Neither the 

Department nor the Center can revise 

the data that States must submit to the 

Department under different statutes 

(e.g., sections 616 and 618 of IDEA and 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act). However, under this 

priority, the Department has the 

authority, under section 616(i)(2) of 

IDEA, to provide TA (from funds 

reserved under section 611(c) from FY 

2013) to improve the capacity of States 

to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C data 

collection requirements. Thus, the 

Center will assist the Department by 

helping States directly integrate and 

align State-level data reporting systems 

as a way to improve the overall quality 

of the data and facilitate use of the data 

that is reported to the Department and 

used by the public. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority: 

IDEA Data Management Center. 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

a cooperative agreement to establish and 

operate an IDEA Data Management 

Center (Center) to achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: (a) Improve States’ data 

management procedures and data 

systems architecture to build data files 

and reports to improve States’ capacity 

to meet the Part B reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA; and (b) improve States’ 

capacity to utilize their SLDS to report 

high-quality data under IDEA Part B as 

required under sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA. The Center’s work will comply 

with the privacy and confidentiality 

protections in the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and 

IDEA and will not provide the 

Department with access to child-level 

data. 

Project Activities. To meet the 

requirements of this priority, the IDEA 

Data Management Center, at a 

minimum, must: 

Knowledge Development Activities in 

Year One. 

(a) Document the methods of 

collecting, processing, and reporting the 

IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data 

for the 60 State educational agencies 

(SEAs). The documentation must align 

the data used by the States to meet the 

Part B IDEA data to the Common 

Education Data Standards (CEDS). 

(b) Analyze the methods of collecting, 

processing, and reporting the Part B 

IDEA data for commonalities and 

challenges and identify States in need of 

intensive or targeted TA. 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Activities. 

(a) Provide intensive TA 2 to at least 

10 States to improve their ability to 

utilize SLDS as sources for reporting 

Part B data required under sections 616 

and 618 of IDEA. The Center must use 

information obtained through the 

activities described under paragraph (a) 

of the Knowledge Development 

Activities in Year One section of this 

priority to inform the intensive TA, 

which must be focused on States that 

are not using their SLDS to report their 

IDEA Part B section 616 and 618 data. 

Note: Applicants must describe the 

methods and criteria they will use to recruit 

and select States for intensive TA. The Center 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

45348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3For more information on CEDS Connections, 

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

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

information provided to independent users through 

their own initiative, resulting in minimal 

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

TA center staff. This category of TA also includes 

information or products, such as newsletters, 

guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded 

from the TA center’s Web site by independent 

users. Brief communications by TA center staff with 

recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 

considered universal, general TA. 

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

based on needs common to multiple recipients and 

not extensively individualized. A relationship is 

established between the TA recipient and one or 

more TA center staff. This category of TA includes 

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

strategic planning or hosting regional or national 

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

such as facilitating a series of conference calls on 

single or multiple topics that are designed around 

the needs of the recipients. Facilitating 

communities of practice can also be considered 

targeted, specialized TA. 

must obtain approval from OSEP on the final 

selection of intensive TA States. 

(b) Provide a range of targeted and 

general TA products and services for 

improving States’ capacity to report 

high-quality Part B data required under 

sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Such TA 

must include, at a minimum: 

(1) Working with the Department to 

develop open source electronic tools to 

assist States in building EDFacts data 

files and reports that can be submitted 

to the Department and made available to 

the public. The tools must utilize CEDS 

and meet all States’ and entities’ needs 

associated with reporting the Part B data 

required under sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA; 

(2) Developing a plan to maintain the 

appropriate functionality of the open 

source electronic tools described in 

paragraph (1) as changes are made to 

data collections, reporting requirements, 

file specifications, and CEDS; 

(3) Assisting States in preparing their 

data in order to use the open source 

electronic tools (e.g., transforming data 

into a data store); 

(4) Conducting training with State 

staff to use the open source electronic 

tools; 

(5) Developing CEDS ‘‘Connections’’ 3

to calculate metrics needed to report the 

Part B data required under sections 616 

and 618 of IDEA; and 

(6) Developing white papers and 

presentations that include tools and 

solutions to challenges in data 

management procedures and data 

system architecture for reporting the 

Part B data required under sections 616 

and 618 of IDEA. 

Coordination Activities. 

(a) Communicate and coordinate, on 

an ongoing basis, with other 

Department-funded projects, including 

those providing data-related support to 

States, such as IDC, DaSy, the CEDS 

initiative, the SLDS program, the 

Privacy Technical Assistance Center, 

and CSI (if funded); and 

(b) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the OSEP project officer. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority. OSEP encourages innovative 

approaches to meet these requirements, 

which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance of the Project,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Address State challenges in 

collecting, analyzing, and accurately 

reporting valid and reliable IDEA data 

on State data management procedures 

and data systems architecture and in 

building EDFacts data files and reports 

for timely and accurate reporting of the 

IDEA data to the Department and the 

public. To meet this requirement the 

applicant must— 

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA 

data collections and EDFacts file 

specifications for the IDEA data 

collection; and 

(ii) Present information about the 

difficulties that States have encountered 

in the collection and submission of 

valid and reliable IDEA data; 

(2) Result in improved IDEA data 

collection and reporting. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Project Services,’’ how 

the proposed project will— 

(1) Achieve the project’s goals, 

objectives, and intended outcomes. To 

meet this requirement, the applicant 

must provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) The logic model by which the 

proposed project will achieve its 

intended outcomes; 

(2) Use a conceptual framework to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or 

theories, as well as the presumed 

relationships or linkages among them, 

and any empirical support for this 

framework; 

(3) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based practices. 

To meet this requirement, the applicant 

must describe— 

(i) The current research on the 

effectiveness of IDEA data collection 

strategies, data management procedures, 

and data systems architectures; 

(ii) How the current research about 

adult learning principles and 

implementation science will inform the 

proposed TA; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and 

evidence-based practices in the 

development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(4) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it will develop knowledge of 

States’ data management processes and 

data systems architecture; 

(ii) How it will facilitate and support 

the leadership role State staff will take 

in improving States’ data management 

procedures and data systems 

architecture; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA 4 for the 60 SEAs; 

(iv) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA,5 which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients of the 

products and services under this 

approach; and 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of potential TA recipients 

to work with the project, assessing, at a 

minimum, their current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the local educational agency 

(LEA) level, as appropriate; 

(v) Its proposed approach to intensive, 

sustained TA, which must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients of the 

products and services under this 

approach; 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of the SEAs to work with 

the proposed project including the 

SEAs’ commitment to the initiative, fit 

of the initiatives, current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the LEA level, as 

appropriate; and 

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting 

SEAs to build training systems that 

include professional development based 

on adult learning principles and 

coaching. 

(5) Develop products and implement 

services to maximize the project’s 

efficiency. To address this requirement, 

the applicant must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; and 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 45349 

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

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

(1) The proposed project will collect 

and analyze data on specific and 

measurable goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes of the project. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe its— 

(i) Proposed evaluation 

methodologies, including instruments, 

data collection methods, and analyses; 

and 

(ii) Proposed standards of 

effectiveness; 

(2) The proposed project will use the 

evaluation results to examine the 

effectiveness of its implementation and 

its progress toward achieving the 

intended outcomes; and 

(3) The methods of evaluation will 

produce quantitative and qualitative 

data that demonstrate whether the 

project achieved the intended outcomes. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed project will 

encourage applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 

and experience to carry out the 

proposed activities and achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Management Plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) How key project personnel and 

any consultants and subcontractors will 

be allocated to the project and how 

these allocations are appropriate and 

adequate to achieve the project’s 

intended outcomes; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality; 

and 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives, 

including those of State and local 

personnel, TA providers, researchers, 

and policy makers, among others, in its 

development and operation. 

(f) Address the following application 

requirements. The applicant must— 

(1) Include in Appendix A of the 

application a logic model that depicts, 

at a minimum, the goals, activities, 

outputs, and outcomes of the proposed 

project. A logic model communicates 

how a project will achieve its intended 

outcomes and provides a framework for 

both the formative and summative 

evaluations of the project. 

Note: The following Web sites provide 

more information on logic models: www.

researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_

resource3c.html and www.tadnet.org/pages/

589; 

(2) Include in Appendix A of the 

application a conceptual framework for 

the project; 

(3) Include in Appendix A of the 

application person-loading charts and 

timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the 

management plan described in the 

narrative; 

(4) Include in the proposed budget 

funding for attendance at the following: 

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

meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt 

of the award, and an annual planning 

meeting in Washington, DC, with the 

OSEP project officer and other relevant 

staff during each subsequent year of the 

project period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference must be 

held between the OSEP project officer and 

the grantee’s project director or other 

authorized representative; 

(ii) A two and one-half day project 

directors’ meeting in Washington, DC, to 

occur every other year beginning with 

the meeting scheduled for Summer, 

2016; 

(iii) Two annual two-day trips for 

Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other 

meetings, as requested by OSEP; and 

(iv) A one-day intensive review 

meeting in Washington, DC, during the 

last half of the second year of the project 

period; 

(5) Include in the budget a line item 

for an annual set-aside of five percent of 

the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s intended outcomes, 

as those needs are identified in 

consultation with OSEP. 

Note: With approval from the OSEP project 

officer, the project must reallocate any 

remaining funds from this annual set-aside 

no later than the end of the third quarter of 

each budget period; and 

(6) Maintain a Web site that meets 

government or industry-recognized 

standards for accessibility. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

45350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

An IDEA Data Management Center 

funded under the priority established by 

this regulatory action will assist States 

in complying with Federal laws and 

regulations. Without this regulatory 

action, the burden of improving State 

capacity to collect, report, and analyze 

IDEA data would fall solely on the 

responsible State and local entities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: July 31, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18481 Filed 8–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0022; FRL–9914–53– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Redesignation Requests, 

Associated Maintenance Plans, and 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

the Delaware Portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standards, and the 

2007 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the State of 

Delaware’s requests to redesignate to 

attainment the Delaware portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the 

Philadelphia Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) for 

both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also 

approving as revisions to the Delaware 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

associated maintenance plans to show 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 

2025 for the Delaware portion of the 

Area. EPA is also proposing to approve 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) included in Delaware’s 

maintenance plans for the Delaware 

portion of the Area for both the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. EPA is also determining that 

the Delaware portion of the 

Philadelphia Area continues to attain 

both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 

approving the 2007 emissions inventory 

for the Delaware portion of the Area for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES