Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24661 

1All references to a statute in this priority are to 

sections of IDEA unless otherwise noted. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zones 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section must contact the Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or his on-scene 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in a safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his onscene representative. 

(d) Exemption. Public vessels, as 

defined in paragraph (c) of this section, 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

(e) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo or his designated 

representative may waive any of the 

requirements of this section, upon 

finding that operational conditions or 

other circumstances are such that 

application of this section is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purposes of public or environmental 

safety. 

(f) Notification. The Captain of the 

Port Buffalo will notify the public that 

the safety zones in this section are or 

will be enforced by all appropriate 

means to the affected segments of the 

through publication in the Federal 

Register as practicable, in accordance 

with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Additionally, the 

enforcement dates and times for each of 

the safety zones listed above are subject 

to change, though the duration of 

enforcement would remain the same or 

nearly the same total number of hours 

as stated above. In either event, whether 

the safety zones occur at the dates and 

times as stated above, or whether the 

date or time of a safety zone changes, 

the Captain of the Port Buffalo will 

similarly make such notification as 

described in this paragraph (f). Such 

means of further notification may also 

include, but are not limited to Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to 

Mariners. The Captain of the Port will 

issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

notifying the public when enforcement 

of the safety zone is cancelled. 

Dated: March 12, 2014. 

B.W. Roche, 

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

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09862 Filed 4–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0061; CFDA 

Number: 84.373F] 

Proposed Priority—Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection— 

IDEA Fiscal Data Center 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a funding priority 

under the Technical Assistance (TA) on 

State Data Collection program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this 

proposed priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We 

take this action to focus attention on an 

identified national need to provide TA 

to improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before July 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. Please 

submit your comments only one time, in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Matthew 

Schneer, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4169, 

Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 

20202–2600. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Schneer. Telephone: (202) 

245–6755 or by email: 

Matthew.Schneer@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priority in this notice. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priority, we urge you to 

clearly identify the specific topic that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request, we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program is to improve the 

capacity of States to meet their IDEA 

data collection and reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA. 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 IDEA to provide TA 

activities authorized under section 

616(i).1 Section 616(i) requires the 

Secretary to review the data collection 

and analysis capacity of States to ensure 

that data and information determined 

necessary for implementation of section 

616 are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported. It also requires the 

Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 

to improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements under 

IDEA. The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2014 gives the Secretary the 

authority to use FY 2014 funds reserved 

under section 611(c) to assist the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2For the purposes of this priority, IDEA fiscal 

data refers specifically to two annual data 

submissions authorized under section 618 of IDEA: 

(a) Section V of the Annual State Application under 

Part B of IDEA (Part B Annual Application); and (b) 

the LEA MOE/CEIS Collection, which was formerly 

referred to as the Report on Maintenance of Effort 

Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening 

Services (Table 8). 

3Under section 613(f), LEAs may voluntarily 

reserve not more than 15 percent of their IDEA 

subgrants, less any amount reduced because the 

LEA took the LEA MOE reduction in 34 CFR 

300.205 to develop and implement CEIS for 

students in kindergarten through grade 12 who have 

not been identified as needing special education or 

related services, but who need additional academic 

and behavioral support to succeed in a general 

education environment. 

4Under section 618(d)(2)(B), if a State identifies 

significant disproportionality based on race or 

ethnicity in an LEA with respect to the 

identification of children as children with 

disabilities, or the placement of children with 

disabilities in particular educational settings, the 

LEA must use the maximum amount (15 percent) 

of funds allowable for CEIS to provide 

comprehensive CEIS for children in the LEA, 

particularly for children in those groups that were 

significantly overidentified. 

5Under section 613(a)(2)(B) and 34 CFR 300.204, 

an LEA may reduce the level of expenditures for the 

education of children with disabilities below the 

level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal 

year if the reduction is attributable to any of the 

following: 

(a) The voluntary departure, by retirement or 

otherwise, or departure for just cause, of special 

education or related services personnel. 

(b) A decrease in the enrollment of children with 

disabilities. 

(c) The termination of the obligation of the 

agency, consistent with Part B of the IDEA, to 

provide a program of special education to a 

particular child with a disability that is an 

exceptionally costly program, as determined by the 

SEA, because the child— 

(1) Has left the jurisdiction of the agency; 

(2) Has reached the age at which the obligation 

of the agency to provide FAPE to the child has 

terminated; or 

(3) No longer needs the program of special 

education. 

(d) The termination of costly expenditures for 

long-term purchases, such as the acquisition of 

equipment or the construction of school facilities. 

(e) The assumption of cost by the high cost fund 

operated by the SEA under 34 CFR 300.704(c). 

Secretary to administer and carry out 

other services and activities to improve 

data collection, coordination, quality, 

and use under Parts B and C of IDEA 

(Pub. L. 113–76). 

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

1416(i), and 1418(c); Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

Proposed Priority 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. The priority is: 

IDEA Fiscal Data Center 

Background 

The purpose of this priority is to 

establish a Fiscal IDEA Data Center 

(Center) to provide States with TA for 

meeting their fiscal data collection and 

reporting obligations under IDEA.2

Within the past four years, the 

Secretary has instituted two new fiscal 

data collections that apply to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) that 

administer Part B of IDEA: (a) IDEA Part 

B local educational agency (LEA) 

Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction 

and Coordinated Early Intervening 

Services (CEIS) [LEA MOE/CEIS] Data 

Collection, added in Federal fiscal year 

(FFY) 2009; and (b) Section V of the Part 

B Annual Application under IDEA 

(Section V), added in the FFY 2013 

application. States may suffer 

significant monetary consequences as a 

result of noncompliance identified 

through these data collections. 

LEA MOE/CEIS Requirement 

Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.203(a), 

amounts provided to an LEA under Part 

B of IDEA shall not be used, except as 

provided in 34 CFR 300.204 and 205, to 

reduce the level of expenditures for the 

education of children with disabilities 

made by the LEA below the level of 

expenditures for the preceding fiscal 

year. Pursuant to section 613(a)(2)(C) 

and 34 CFR 300.205, in any fiscal year 

for which the IDEA section 611 subgrant 

received by an LEA exceeds the amount 

the LEA received for the previous fiscal 

year, and providing that the SEA has 

determined that the LEA is meeting the 

requirements of IDEA under section 616 

and the SEA has not taken action 

against the LEA under section 616, the 

LEA may reduce the level of 

expenditures for the education of 

children with disabilities by not more 

than 50 percent of the amount of such 

excess in the current year’s subgrant. 

Section 613(a)(2)(C)(iv) provides that 

the amount of funds expended by an 

LEA for CEIS shall count toward the 

maximum amount of expenditures for 

the education of children with 

disabilities that an LEA may reduce 

under section 613(a)(2)(C). Consistent 

with long-standing Department practice, 

if an LEA fails to maintain its level of 

expenditures for the education of 

children with disabilities, the SEA is 

liable in a recovery action under 20 

U.S.C. 1234a to return to the 

Department, from non-Federal funds or 

funds for which accountability to the 

Federal government is not required, an 

amount equal to the amount by which 

the LEA failed to maintain its level of 

expenditures. 

LEA MOE/CEIS Data Collection 

Requirements and Calculations 

In order to meet the data collection 

requirement related to LEA MOE/CEIS, 

States must report the following data for 

all LEAs (including educational service 

agencies): (a) Section 611 and section 

619 allocation amounts; (b) The amount 

by which the LEA reduced its level of 

fiscal effort under 34 CFR 300.205 (LEA 

MOE reduction); (c) For each LEA that 

reserved funds for CEIS (required or 

voluntary), the dollar amount that was 

reserved; and (d) The number of 

children receiving CEIS. In addition, the 

SEA must provide the following 

information: (a) The relevant LEA 

determination under section 616; and 

(b) Whether the LEA voluntarily 

reserved funds for CEIS 3 or was 

required to reserve funds for CEIS.4

States must collect valid and reliable 

data on LEA MOE/CEIS from their LEAs 

in order to report valid and reliable data 

on LEA MOE/CEIS to the Department. 

In order to determine the amount by 

which an LEA reduced local, or State 

and local, expenditures for the 

education of children with disabilities 

in the reporting year pursuant to 34 CFR 

300.205, the LEA must determine: (a) 

The amount of local, or State and local, 

funds it expended in a prior year, as 

well as the amount expended in the 

reporting year; (b) What portion of the 

reduction of these expenditures, if any, 

taken in the reporting year is 

attributable to the LEA MOE exceptions 

in 34 CFR 300.204; 5 and (c) The portion 

that is attributable to the LEA MOE 

adjustment provision in 34 CFR 

300.205. 

The following is an example of the 

information needed to accurately report 

the amount by which an LEA reduced 

its expenditures of State and local funds 

for the education of children with 

disabilities pursuant to 34 CFR 300.205. 

This example assumes that the LEA 

calculates MOE based on State and local 

funds, not just local funds, and the 

reporting year is school year (SY) 2012– 

2013. In this example, the LEA must 

make the following calculations in order 

to report accurate LEA MOE/CEIS data: 

(a) The amount of State and local 

funds expended for the education of 

children with disabilities in SY 2011– 

2012; 

(b) The amount of State and local 

funds expended for the education of 

children with disabilities in SY 2012– 

2013; 

(c) The amount of the reduction, if 

any, in State and local funds expended 

for the education of children with 

disabilities between SY 2011–2012 and 

SY 2012–2013; 

(d) The amount of that reduction, if 

any, in SY 2012–2013 that is 

attributable to the exceptions permitted 

in 34 CFR 300.204; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24663 

6This is a partial list identified by OSEP. 

7Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort 

Flexibility Due to Recovery Act IDEA, Part B Funds 

(ED–OIG/L09L0011). 

8See OSEP Memorandum 10–5, dated December 

2, 2009 (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/

idea/memosdcltrs/osep10- 

05maintenanceoffinancialsupport.pdf). 

9Each request required numerous data 

submissions and teleconferences before the 

Department could respond to the waiver request. In 

two instances, Department staff travelled to the SEA 

to resolve data issues. 

(e) If the LEA met requirements and 

had an increase in its FFY 2012 section 

611 allocation, the amount of that 

reduction, if any, in SY 2012–2013 that 

is attributable to the MOE adjustment 

provision in 34 CFR 300.205. 

LEA MOE/CEIS Data Quality Issues 

Based on the Office of Special 

Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) review of 

the LEA MOE/CEIS data submitted for 

FFYs 2009 and 2010, OSEP determined 

that a significant number of States 

initially reported data that were not 

valid and reliable. For example, many 

States initially reported data indicating 

that their LEAs: 6

(a) Decreased expenditures of nonFederal funds for the education of 

children with disabilities, pursuant to 

34 CFR 300.205, even though they did 

not have a determination of meets 

requirements under section 616; 

(b) Decreased expenditures of nonFederal funds for the education of 

children with disabilities, pursuant to 

34 CFR 300.205, by more than the 

allowable reduction of 50 percent of the 

increase of their IDEA section 611 

subgrant; and 

(c) Did not reserve 15 percent of their 

Part B IDEA allocation for 

comprehensive CEIS when required to 

do so pursuant to 34 CFR 300.646. 

In the process of providing TA to 

States, OSEP found that some States 

initially reported data that were not 

valid and reliable because the States did 

not fully understand the underlying 

fiscal requirements and the calculations 

necessary to meet the data collection 

requirements related to LEA MOE/CEIS. 

In addition, OSEP has identified 

issues related to the quality of LEA 

MOE/CEIS data through monitoring and 

inquiries from States and LEAs. In a 

recent audit, the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) also raised concerns 

about the validity and reliability of the 

LEA MOE/CEIS data.7 These 

experiences demonstrate the continued 

need to provide TA on LEA MOE/CEIS 

data collection requirements in order to 

ensure States submit valid and reliable 

data that meet the data collection 

requirements. 

State Maintenance of Financial Support 

(MFS) Requirement 

Pursuant to section 612(a)(18)(A) and 

34 CFR 300.163(a), States must not 

reduce the total amount of State 

financial support made available for 

special education and related services 

for children with disabilities, or made 

available because of the excess costs of 

educating those children, below the 

amount of that support for the preceding 

fiscal year. This requirement is 

applicable to State financial support 

made available by a State through all of 

its State agencies, and is not limited to 

the support made available through the 

SEA.8

Under section 612(a)(18)(B), the 

statutory consequence for a State that 

fails to maintain financial support 

without obtaining a waiver under 

section 612(a)(18)(C) is a reduction in 

the amount of the State’s section 611 

grant award in any fiscal year in an 

amount equal to the amount by which 

the State failed to maintain financial 

support. 

Beginning in FY 2013, Congress made 

changes to the procedure for allocating 

Part B funds to States in section 611(d) 

of the IDEA in order to limit the impact 

of a one-time violation of the MFS 

requirement. While these changes did 

reduce the long-term effects of a State’s 

failure to maintain financial support, 

reducing State allocations in accordance 

with section 612(a)(18) could still result 

in a significant reduction in a given 

fiscal year, depending on the amount by 

which the State failed to meet the 

requirements. 

Section V of the Part B Annual 

Application 

Section V of the Part B Annual 

Application requires States to provide 

the total amount of State financial 

support made available for special 

education and related services for 

children with disabilities. These data 

assist OSEP in determining whether 

States met the requirements of section 

612(a)(18). For FFY 2013, States were 

required to report and certify the 

amount of State funds made available 

for State FYs 2011 and 2012. 

As part of its monitoring 

responsibilities, OSEP has conducted 

fiscal monitoring, reviewed waiver 

requests under section 612(a)(18)(C), 

resolved Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A–133 audits, 

and reviewed States’ data submitted in 

Section V of their applications. Based 

on these activities OSEP has concluded 

that many States need additional TA to 

submit valid and reliable data in Section 

V. Specifically related to State MFS, 

OSEP found: 

(a) Seventeen States could not 

demonstrate that they have procedures 

to properly calculate State MFS; 

(b) Since 2009, 8 States submitted a 

total of 12 State MFS waiver requests 

that required considerable 

clarification; 9 and 

(c) Multiple States had discrepancies 

between the data reported in Section V 

and data obtained from other sources, 

including publicly available data, 

requiring OSEP to devote significant 

staff time and resources to determining 

whether the MFS data for those States 

were valid and reliable. 

Assisting States in reporting valid and 

reliable State MFS data is made more 

difficult because every State’s special 

education funding structure is different 

and may change with State legislative 

action. As a result of these issues, OSEP 

believes that States need intensive, 

State-specific TA on how to collect and 

report valid and reliable State MFS data 

to meet the data collection 

requirements. OSEP believes that 

investing in the Center to assist States 

in collecting and reporting valid and 

reliable data is more efficient than 

identifying and correcting inaccurate 

data after it has been reported to the 

Department. 

Proposed Priority 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate a Center to 

achieve, at a minimum, the following 

expected outcomes: (a) Improve the 

capacity of State staff to collect and 

report accurate fiscal data related to 

LEA MOE/CEIS and State MFS; and (b) 

increase States’ knowledge of the 

underlying fiscal requirements and the 

calculations necessary to submit valid 

and reliable data on LEA MOE/CEIS and 

State MFS. 

Project Activities. To meet the 

requirements of this priority, the Center 

at a minimum, must conduct the 

following activities: 

Knowledge Development Activities 

(a) To ensure that States have the 

capacity to collect and report accurate 

LEA MOE/CEIS and State MFS fiscal 

data, survey all 60 IDEA Part B 

programs in the first year to: 

(1) Assess their capacity to collect and 

report high-quality LEA MOE/CEIS and 

State MFS fiscal data required under 

data collections authorized under 

section 618 and identify the policies 

and practices that facilitate or hinder 

the collection of accurate data 

consistent with IDEA fiscal 

requirements; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10The requirement of the priority is that the 

Center provides intensive TA to 10 SEAs in any 

given year, which may include continued TA for 

some SEAs across more than one year. 

11 ‘‘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. 

12 ‘‘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. 

13 ‘‘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. 

(2) Analyze and catalogue how States 

make available State financial support 

for special education and related 

services in order to develop templates 

that increase the capacity of States to 

collect and report accurate data; 

(b) In the first year, analyze the LEA 

MOE/CEIS data submissions and data 

notes to determine common data 

collection and submission errors and to 

identify States in need of intensive or 

targeted TA. 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Activities 

(a) Provide intensive TA to a 

minimum of 10 SEAs per year 10 to 

improve States’ collection and 

submission of IDEA fiscal data 

consistent with the requirements of 

IDEA. Preference should be given to 

those States with the greatest need, 

including States with a demonstrated 

failure to accurately report MFS or LEA 

MOE/CEIS data, and States requesting 

TA. When working with States on LEA 

MOE/CEIS data, the TA should develop 

the capacity of SEAs to train LEAS to 

accurately report the required data; 

(b) Provide a range of targeted and 

general TA products and services 

related to fiscal data to improve State 

capacity to collect and report valid and 

reliable data, including the 

dissemination of OSEP guidance on 

IDEA fiscal requirements and the 

development and dissemination of TA 

products on IDEA fiscal data collection 

and reporting requirements, and 

improve the capacity of SEAs to train 

LEAs to accurately report the required 

data; and 

(c) Develop templates to assist States 

in collecting valid and reliable State 

MFS and LEA MOE/CEIS data so those 

data can be accurately reported to OSEP. 

These templates should be designed to 

accommodate variances in State school 

financing systems (insofar as possible) 

and remind users of the applicable 

required components of the calculation. 

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 the National Technical 

Assistance Center to Improve State 

Capacity to Accurately Collect and 

Report IDEA Data; and 

(b) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the OSEP project officer. 

Administrative 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 address States’ 

capacity to: (1) Understand IDEA’s 

statutory and regulatory basis for the 

fiscal reporting requirements; (2) collect 

valid and reliable fiscal data; (3) 

conduct required calculations consistent 

with IDEA requirements; and (4) report 

valid and reliable fiscal data; and 

(b) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA 

fiscal data collections, including the 

underlying statutory and regulatory 

requirements, current fiscal guidance, 

and State school funding systems; 

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Project Services,’’ how 

the proposed project would— 

(1) Achieve its 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 these 

variables, and any empirical support for 

this framework; 

(3) Base the design of the TA on 

current research and make use of 

evidence-based practices. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) The current research about adult 

learning principles and implementation 

science that would inform the proposed 

TA; and 

(ii) How the proposed project would 

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 proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base for IDEA 

fiscal data collection and reporting 

requirements; 

(ii) How it proposes to conduct the 

survey of all 60 IDEA Part B Programs 

administered by SEAs; 

(iii) How it proposes to conduct 

universal, general TA 11 for the 60 SEAs 

that have IDEA Part B programs; 

(iv) How it proposes to provide 

targeted, specialized TA,12 which must 

identify— 

(A) The intended recipients of the 

products and services under this 

approach; 

(B) How it proposes 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 LEA level; and 

(C) Appropriate staff with the 

requisite responsibilities to receive the 

TA in these areas. 

(v) How it proposes to provide 

intensive, sustained TA,13 which must 

identify— 

(A) How it proposes to select and 

recruit SEAs to work with the proposed 

project, considering the SEAs’ need for 

the initiative, current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the LEA level; 

(B) How it proposes to assist SEAs in 

building training systems that include 

professional development based on 

adult learning principles and coaching; 

and 

(C) How it proposes to involve and 

work with other regional TA providers 

to assist SEAs with communication 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24665 

between each level of the education 

system (e.g., districts, schools, families); 

(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 would 

use technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

would collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration; and 

(iii) How the proposed project would 

use non-project resources to achieve the 

intended project outcomes. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

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

(1) The proposed project would 

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 or targets for 

determining effectiveness; 

(2) The proposed project would use 

the evaluation results to examine the 

effectiveness of its implementation and 

its progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes; and 

(3) The proposed methods of 

evaluation would produce quantitative 

and qualitative data that demonstrate 

whether the project achieved the 

intended outcomes. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed project would 

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, including 

experience working with State and 

district fiscal systems. 

(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. 

(f) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Management Plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

would ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated to the project and how these 

allocations are appropriate and adequate 

to achieve the project’s intended 

outcomes; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

would ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality; 

and 

(4) The proposed project would obtain 

a diversity of perspectives, including 

those of State and local personnel, TA 

providers, researchers, and policy 

makers, among others, in the 

development and operation of its plan. 

(g) Address the following application 

requirements: 

(1) Include in Appendix A 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 a 

conceptual framework for the project; 

(3) Include in Appendix A personloading charts and timelines, as 

applicable, to illustrate the management 

plan described in the narrative; 

(4) Include in the budget the costs for 

attending the following events: 

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

meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt 

of the award, and an annual planning 

meeting in Washington, DC, with the 

OSEP project officer and other relevant 

staff during each subsequent year of the 

project period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference must be 

held between the OSEP project officer and 

the grantee’s project director or other 

authorized representative; 

(ii) A two and one-half day project 

directors’ conference in Washington, 

DC, during each year of the project 

period; 

(iii) A two-day trip annually to attend 

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)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this proposed priority, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 84 / Thursday, May 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only on a reasoned determination that 

its benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

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

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 28, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10000 Filed 4–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS