Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6915 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Secretary invites comments on 

how to make the proposed priorities and 

requirements easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed priorities and 

requirements contain technical terms or 

other wording that interferes with their 

clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priorities and requirements (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 

clarity? 

• Would the proposed priorities and 

requirements be easier to understand if 

we divided them into more (but shorter) 

sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed priorities and requirements in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed priority and 

requirements easier to understand? If so, 

how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

easier to understand? 

To send any comments about how the 

Department could make the proposed 

priorities and requirements easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Intergovernmental Review 

These programs are subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of 

the objectives of the Executive order is 

to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities that this 

proposed regulatory action would affect 

are IHEs, Indian tribes, and public or 

private nonprofit organizations. The 

Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the proposed 

priorities and requirements would be 

limited to paperwork burden related to 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits would outweigh any costs 

incurred by applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities and requirements would 

impose no burden on small entities 

unless they applied for funding under 

the program. We expect that in 

determining whether to apply for RLTT 

funds, an eligible applicant 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 

RLTT grant. Eligible applicants most 

likely would apply only if they 

determine that the likely benefits exceed 

the costs of preparing an application. 

The likely benefits include the potential 

receipt of a grant as well as other 

benefits that may accrue to an entity 

through its development of an 

application, such as the use of that 

application to seek funding from other 

sources to train State VR counselors or 

RSA scholars in their pursuit to 

successfully graduate with an 

undergraduate or master’s level degree, 

or certificate of completion and then 

secure or maintain employment at the 

State VR agency, filling critical VR 

positions where there are shortages or a 

need. 

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 priorities and 

requirements do not contain any 

information collection requirements. 

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. 2025–00268 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OSERS–0144] 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection—National Technical 

Assistance Center To Improve State 

Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, 

and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part 

C Fiscal Data 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes a priority for a 

National Technical Assistance Center to 

Improve State Capacity to Collect, 

Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 

IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data 

Center (Fiscal Data 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 fiscal data 

collection requirements under Part B 

and Part C of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This 

Fiscal Data Center will support States in 

collecting, reporting, and determining 

how to best analyze and use their IDEA 

Part B and Part C fiscal data to establish 

and meet high expectations for each 

child with a disability and will 

customize its TA to meet each State’s 

specific needs. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 7, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6916 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

1Ten States indicated that they are currently 

subgranting IDEA Part C funds. It should be noted 

that subgranting of IDEA Part C funds was first 

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: 

Charles D. Kniseley, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 987–0907. Email: 

Charles.Kniseley@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. 

A brief summary of the rule is 

available at www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/ED-2024-OSERS-0144. 

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 

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 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 set-aside for any 

fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively 

adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 

616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to 

review the data collection and analysis 

capacity of States to ensure that data 

and information determined necessary 

for implementation of sections 616 and 

642 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported to the Secretary. It 

also requires the Secretary to provide 

TA, where needed, to improve the 

capacity of States to meet the data 

collection requirements, which include 

the data collection and reporting 

requirements in sections 616 and 618 of 

IDEA. In addition, the 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: 84.373F. 

OMB Control Number: 1820–0028. 

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. 

National Technical Assistance Center 

to Improve State Capacity to Collect, 

Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate 

IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data. 

Background 

Collecting, analyzing, and using valid 

and reliable IDEA fiscal data are critical 

for States to be able to ensure that funds 

made available to support programs for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth 

with disabilities are used consistent 

with requirements and to implement 

effective programs that improve 

outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, 

and youth with disabilities. However, 

the Department’s review and analysis of 

State-submitted fiscal data show that 

States are not meeting all fiscal 

requirements or effectively using their 

data to understand how to meet the 

requirements, thereby impacting 

program effectiveness and outcomes. 

For example, State-submitted data 

regarding local educational agency 

(LEA) maintenance of effort (MOE) and 

coordinated early intervening services 

(CEIS) for school year 2021–2022 

indicate that 239 LEAs across 20 States 

failed to maintain effort, with 

approximately 28 percent of those 

failures occurring in public charter 

schools that are LEAs. The data also 

show that States made repayment for 

only 26 of those LEA MOE shortfalls at 

the time States submitted their data to 

the Department. Assisting States in 

understanding and analyzing why LEAs, 

including public charter schools that are 

LEAs, are failing LEA MOE, and the 

factors contributing to delays in State 

repayments for MOE failures, has highstakes implications for IDEA 

implementation, including ensuring that 

children with disabilities who attend 

public charter schools that are LEAs 

have sufficient resources to receive a 

free appropriate public education. 

Changes to Federal fiscal 

requirements that impact the fiscal data 

States must submit to the Department 

require States to build their capacity to 

submit valid and reliable fiscal data. 

Starting in FY 2024, State lead agencies 

(LAs) for Part C are now reporting the 

data submission related to LAs’ use of 

subgrants.1 LAs have demonstrated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6917 

permitted in the FY 2021 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act (HR 133), and is now supported 

by revisions to 34 CFR 76.50 of the Education 

Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR). 

2Since FY 2021, 11 States have changed lead 

agencies, with a number moving to newly created 

early learning agencies serving birth to five. 

3National Center for Systemic Improvement. 

(2024). State special education director snapshot: 

Trends in turnover and tenure. https://

ncsi.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NCSILeadership-Turnover-ADA-FINAL.pdf. 

4 IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators 

Association. (2024). 2023 Tipping points survey: 

Demographics, challenges, and opportunities. 

www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2023-TippingPoints-Survey.pdf. 

5Research shows that the impact of staff turnover 

and inexperience on organizational performance is 

more pronounced in situations where staff are 

required to work on difficult tasks that require 

specialized skills. Meier, K. J., & Hicklin, A. (2008). 

Employee turnover and organizational performance: 

Testing a hypothesis from classical public 

administration. Journal of Public Administration 

Research and Theory: J–PART, 18(4), 573–590. 

www.jstor.org/stable/25096385. 

confusion in determining whether or 

not they are subgranting and need to 

understand what these data represent as 

well as the underlying requirements 

when subgranting Federal funds, 

including the cross-cutting Federal 

fiscal requirements and related 

responsibilities that apply both to the 

LA as a pass-through entity and to its 

early intervention services (EIS) 

providers and programs as subgrantees. 

Changes within a State, such as the 

methods by which State and local 

special education and early intervention 

funding is calculated and distributed, 

can also impact its ability to submit 

accurate and valid fiscal data. As an 

example, when a State changes its 

special education funding formula from 

a per capita amount of State aid based 

on the number of children with 

disabilities in an LEA to a weighted 

formula that provides variable funding 

based on children within each of IDEA’s 

13 disability categories, the change 

potentially affects calculations of both 

State maintenance of financial support 

(MFS) and LEA MOE as well as a State’s 

and LEAs’ ability to meet MFS and LEA 

MOE respectively. 

When States change LAs or shift LA 

responsibility under IDEA Part C to 

reorganize their early childhood 

programs and create offices that serve 

children birth to five,2 this can also 

impact how fiscal data are collected, 

analyzed, and used. These types of 

organizational changes result in 

modifications to early intervention 

methods of establishing financial 

responsibility, consistent with 34 CFR 

303.511, and often have implications for 

the LA’s use of IDEA Part C funds and 

the methodology for determining 

indirect costs. There may also be the 

challenge of having new, inexperienced 

staff collecting, analyzing, and reporting 

IDEA Part C fiscal data in the new LA 

or office. 

Even in States that have not 

reorganized their SEA or LA, the high 

rate of turnover among State staff 

responsible for implementing IDEA in 

some States is an ongoing challenge that 

creates a continuing need for supporting 

States’ ability to accurately collect, 

report, analyze, and use fiscal data. In 

2023, 23 percent of State Directors of 

Special Education, who are responsible 

for implementing IDEA Part B 

requirements including fiscal 

requirements, left their positions, and 

38 percent of State Directors of Special 

Education had fewer than two years of 

experience in their roles that year.3

Similar leadership trends can be found 

in Part C LAs. In 2023, 49 percent of 

Part C Coordinators, who are 

responsible for implementing IDEA Part 

C, including fiscal requirements and 

providing information related to their 

program’s intended use of funds in the 

IDEA Part C grant application, had two 

years or less of experience in the 

position. In that same year, 74 percent 

of Part C Coordinators reported having 

five years or less experience.4 The 

impacts of staff turnover on SEA and LA 

fiscal performance and data reporting 

can potentially include the loss of 

knowledge related to fiscal 

requirements; loss of institutional 

knowledge related to State policies, 

procedures, and practices; and costs 

associated with recruiting and training 

new staff.5

The situations identified above 

highlight States’ need for support in 

building the knowledge and expertise to 

help ensure compliance with IDEA’s 

fiscal data requirements and to use the 

results to identify issues and improve 

State systems. Lack of staff knowledge 

and expertise may contribute to 

inaccurate reporting of IDEA fiscal data 

by a State, which may lead to 

noncompliance with IDEA fiscal 

requirements and potential monetary 

consequences, including the recovery of 

funds. 

The Department has found that 

because of the complex nature of, and 

high-stakes need for meeting, IDEA 

fiscal requirements, SEA and LA staff 

request and readily take advantage of 

targeted and intensive TA activities, 

such as expert-led communities of 

practice and hands-on workshops, 

including workshops devoted to the 

development of IDEA fiscal policies and 

procedures operationalizing State 

practices, to build their capacity to 

address fiscal system needs. 

To meet the array of complex 

challenges regarding the collection, 

reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA 

fiscal data by States; to ensure States 

have access to TA, including fiscal tools 

tailored to their individual 

circumstances; and to support them in 

collecting and reporting complex IDEA 

fiscal data to improve IDEA programs, 

the Department proposes a priority to 

establish and operate the National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Capacity to Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 

and Part C Fiscal Data. 

Proposed Priority 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate the National 

Technical Assistance Center to Improve 

State Capacity to Collect, Report, 

Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B 

and Part C Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data 

Center). 

The Fiscal Data Center will provide 

TA to improve the capacity of States to 

meet the IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal 

data collection requirements under 

IDEA sections 618 and 642 and increase 

States’ knowledge of the underlying 

IDEA fiscal requirements and 

calculations necessary to submit valid 

and reliable data for the following 

collections: (1) MFS in Section V of the 

IDEA Part B Annual State Application; 

(2) LEA MOE Reduction and CEIS; (3) 

Description of Use of IDEA Part B 

Section 611 Funds reserved for State 

administration and other State-level 

activities in Section III of the IDEA Part 

B Annual State Application; (4) 

Description of Use of Federal IDEA Part 

C Funds for the LA and the Interagency 

Coordinating Council in Section III of 

the IDEA Part C Annual State 

Application; (5) IDEA Part C MOE 

requirements; (6) Restricted Indirect 

Cost Rate/Cost Allocation Plan 

Information in Sections III and IV of the 

IDEA Part C Annual State Application; 

and (7) Part C Subgranting, in Section 

III.F. of the Part C Annual State 

Application. 

The Fiscal Data Center must be 

designed to achieve, at a minimum, the 

following expected outcomes: 

(a) Increased capacity of States to 

collect, report, analyze, and use highquality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal 

data; 

(b) Increased capacity of States to 

accurately perform calculations related 

to IDEA Part B and Part C statutory and 

regulatory fiscal requirements, and 

submit valid and reliable fiscal data 

under IDEA Part B and Part C; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6918 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

6For purposes of these requirements, ‘‘evidencebased’’ 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). 

7 ‘‘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. 

8 ‘‘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. 

9 ‘‘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 

(c) Improved State fiscal 

infrastructure to communicate and 

coordinate effective IDEA Part B and 

Part C fiscal data collections and 

reporting strategies among relevant State 

offices, including SEAs, LAs and other 

State agencies, LEAs, schools, public 

charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS 

programs or providers; 

(d) Increased capacity of States to 

submit accurate and timely IDEA Part B 

and Part C fiscal data, and enhance State 

validation procedures to prevent errors 

in State-reported IDEA data; 

(e) Increased capacity of States to 

train personnel to meet the IDEA Part B 

and Part C fiscal data collection and 

reporting requirements under sections 

616, 618, and 642 of IDEA; and 

(f) Increased capacity of SEAs and 

LAs to work with LEAs, including 

public charter schools that are LEAs, 

and EIS programs or providers to 

analyze and use IDEA fiscal data to 

identify issues and address those issues 

through monitoring, TA, and partner 

involvement. 

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 the current and emerging 

needs of States and local systems to 

collect, report, analyze, and use highquality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal 

data. To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must— 

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of how 

SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public 

charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS 

programs and providers are meeting 

IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data 

collection and reporting requirements 

and the underlying statutory and 

regulatory fiscal requirements, as well 

as knowledge of State and local data 

collection systems, as appropriate; and 

(ii) Present applicable national, State, 

and local data to show the current 

capacity needs of SEAs, LAs, LEAs, 

including public charter schools that are 

LEAs, and EIS programs and providers 

to meet IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal 

data collection and reporting 

requirements; and 

(2) Improve how SEAs and LAs use 

IDEA section 618 fiscal data as a means 

of both improving data quality and 

identifying programmatic strengths and 

areas for improvement, and indicate the 

likely magnitude or importance of the 

improvements. 

(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 6 practices 

(EBPs). To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on the 

capacity of SEAs, LEAs, including 

public charter schools that are LEAs, 

LAs, and EIS providers to report and use 

IDEA Part B and Part C data submitted 

under section 616 and section 618, as a 

means of both improving data quality 

and identifying strengths and areas for 

improvement; and 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and EBPs 

in the development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(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 expand the 

knowledge base on— 

(A) Fiscal data management and data 

system integration needed for IDEA Part 

B and Part C data collection and 

reporting; 

(B) IDEA fiscal data validation that 

leads to improvements in the validity 

and reliability of fiscal data required by 

IDEA; and 

(C) Effective ways to communicate 

fiscal data to local consumers (e.g., 

parents, LEAs, including public charter 

schools that are LEAs, EIS programs or 

providers, the general public); 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA,7 which must 

describe— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services; 

(B) The products and services that the 

project proposes to make available; 

(C) The development and 

maintenance of a high-quality website, 

with an easy-to-navigate design, that 

meets or exceeds government- or 

industry-recognized standards for 

accessibility; and 

(D) The expected reach and impact of 

universal, general TA; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA,8 which must describe— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services; 

(B) The products and services that the 

project proposes to make available; and 

(C) The proposed approach to 

measure the readiness of potential TA 

recipients to work with the project, 

including, at a minimum, an assessment 

of potential recipients’ current 

infrastructure, available resources, and 

ability to build capacity at the local 

level; and 

(iv) Its proposed approach to 

intensive, sustained TA,9 which must 

describe— 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6919 

operations that support increased recipient capacity 

or improved outcomes at one or more systems 

levels. 

10For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘underserved 

families’’ refers to foster, kinship, migrant, 

technologically unconnected, and military- or 

veteran-connected families; and families of color, 

living in poverty, without documentation of 

immigration status, experiencing homelessness or 

housing insecurity, or impacted by the justice 

system, including the juvenile justice system. 

Underserved families also refers to families that 

include: members of a federally or State recognized 

Indian Tribe; English learners; adults who 

experience a disability; members who are lesbian, 

gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or 

intersex (LGBTQI+); adults in need of improving 

their basic skills or with limited literacy; and 

disconnected adults. 

11A ‘‘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. 

(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; 

(B) Its proposed approach to 

addressing States’ challenges reporting 

high-quality IDEA fiscal data to the 

Department and the public, which 

should, at a minimum, include 

providing virtual and on-site 

consultation to the SEA or LA to— 

(1) Implement model practices for the 

management of IDEA data and data 

system integration policies, procedures, 

processes, and activities within the 

State; 

(2) Develop, use, or adapt tools to 

meet State-specific IDEA data needs; 

(3) Develop a sustainability plan for 

the State to continue the management of 

IDEA data and data system integration 

work in the future; and 

(4) Implement a cybersecurity plan to 

ensure a secure IDEA fiscal data system; 

(C) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of SEAs and LAs to work 

with the project, including their 

commitment to the initiative, alignment 

of the initiative to their needs, current 

infrastructure, available resources, and 

ability to build capacity at the State and 

local levels; 

(D) Its proposed plan to prioritize 

States with the greatest need for 

intensive TA to receive products and 

services; 

(E) Its proposed plan for assisting 

SEAs and LAs to build or enhance 

training systems that include 

professional development based on 

adult learning principles and coaching; 

(F) Its proposed plan for working with 

appropriate levels of the education 

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

providers, LEAs, including public 

charter schools that are LEAs, local EIS 

programs and providers, and families) to 

ensure that there is communication 

between each level and that there are 

systems in place to support the 

collection, reporting, analysis, and use 

of high-quality IDEA fiscal data as well 

as IDEA fiscal data management and 

data system integration; and 

(G) The expected impact of intensive, 

sustained TA; and 

(v) How the proposed project will 

intentionally engage families of children 

with disabilities and individuals with 

disabilities—including underserved 

families 10 and individuals—in the 

development, implementation, and 

evaluation of its products and services 

across all levels of TA; 

(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, 

including 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; 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) Systematically disseminate 

information, products, and services to 

varied intended audiences. To address 

this requirement the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) The variety of dissemination 

strategies the project will use 

throughout the five years of the project 

to promote awareness and use of its 

products and services; 

(ii) How the project will tailor 

dissemination strategies across all 

planned levels of TA to ensure that 

products and services reach intended 

recipients, and those recipients can 

access and use those products and 

services; 

(iii) How the project’s dissemination 

plan is connected to the proposed 

outcomes of the project; and 

(iv) How the project will evaluate and 

correct all digital products and external 

communications to ensure they meet or 

exceed government or industryrecognized standards for accessibility. 

(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.11 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)(1)(ii) of these 

application and administrative 

requirements; 

(2) Describe how progress in and 

fidelity of implementation, as well as 

project outcomes, will be measured to 

answer the evaluation questions. In 

measuring progress of implementation 

across all levels of TA, the plan must 

include criteria for determining the 

extent to which the project’s products 

and services reached intended 

recipients; data, including feedback 

from recipients, on how recipients used 

the products and services; and the 

impact of the products and services. The 

plan must also specify sources for data, 

and measures and instruments 

appropriate to the evaluation questions, 

including information on reliability and 

validity of the measures and associated 

instruments 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 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) Describe, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6920 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

12For information about digital accessibility and 

accessibility standards from Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, visit https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ 

topic-areas/#Accessibility-Creating-Content. 

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; 

(4) The proposed project will have 

processes, resources, and funds in place 

to provide equitable access for project 

staff, contractors, and partners, who 

require digital accessibility 

accommodations; 12 and 

(5) 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. 

(e) Describe, in the narrative section 

of the application under ‘‘Quality of the 

management plan,’’— 

(1) How 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) Allocations of key project 

personnel and any consultants and 

subcontractors and how these 

allocations are appropriate and adequate 

to achieve the project’s intended 

outcomes; 

(3) How the proposed management 

plan will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality, 

relevant, and useful to recipients; and 

(4) How 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 

Office of Special Education Programs 

(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 period, provided 

that, if the conference is conducted 

virtually, the project must reallocate 

unused travel funds no later than the 

end of the third quarter of each budget 

period; and 

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to 

attend Department briefings, 

Department-sponsored conferences, and 

other meetings, as requested by OSEP; 

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

for an annual set-aside of 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) Budget at least 50 percent of the 

grant award for providing targeted and 

intensive TA to States; and 

(5) Include, in Appendix A, an 

assurance to assist OSEP with the 

transfer of pertinent resources and 

products and to maintain the continuity 

of services to States during the 

transition to this new award period and 

at the end of this award period, as 

appropriate. 

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 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 a 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 

the Executive order, as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6921 

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, territorial, 

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 its clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priority (grouping and order of sections, 

use of headings, paragraphing) aid or 

reduce its clarity? 

• Would the proposed priority be 

easier to understand if we divided it 

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. 

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 

applicants. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6922 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

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

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all 

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. 2025–00985 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Subsistence Management 

50 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. DOI–2024–0011; 256D0102DM 

DS61900000 DMSN00000.000000 DX61901] 

RIN 1090–AB29 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska—2026–27 

and 2027–28 Subsistence Taking of 

Wildlife Regulations 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Office of Subsistence Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

establish regulations for hunting and 

trapping seasons, harvest limits, and 

methods and means related to taking of 

wildlife for subsistence uses during the 

2026–27 and 2027–28 regulatory years. 

The Federal Subsistence Board 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Board’’) is 

on a schedule of completing the process 

of revising subsistence taking of wildlife 

regulations in even-numbered years and 

subsistence taking of fish and shellfish 

regulations in odd-numbered years; 

public proposal and review processes 

take place during the preceding year. 

The Board also addresses customary and 

traditional use determinations during 

the applicable cycle. When final, the 

resulting rulemaking will replace the 

existing subsistence wildlife taking 

regulations. This proposed rule could 

also amend the general regulations on 

subsistence taking of fish and wildlife. 

DATES: Public meetings: The Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Councils’’) 

will receive comments and make 

proposals to change this proposed rule 

during public meetings held between 

February 18, 2025, and April 2, 2025. 

The Councils will hold another round of 

public meetings to discuss and receive 

comments on the proposals and make 

recommendations on the proposals to 

the Board on several dates between 

September 16, 2025, and October 30, 

2025 (see Alaska Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Council Meetings for 2025; 89 

FR 63962; August 06, 2024). The Board 

will discuss and evaluate proposed 

regulatory changes during a public 

meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in April 

2026. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for specific information on dates and 

locations of the public meetings. 

Public comments: Comments and 

proposals to change this proposed rule 

must be received or postmarked by 

April 4, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: 

Public meetings: The Board and the 

Councils’ public meetings are held at 

various locations in Alaska. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific 

information on dates and locations of 

the public meetings. 

Public comments: You may submit 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter Docket number DOI–2024–0011. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, check the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or 

hand delivery: Regulations, Attn: DOI– 

2024–0011; Office of Subsistence 

Management; 1011 E Tudor Road M/S 

121, Anchorage AK 99503. If in-person 

Council meetings are held, you may also 

deliver a hard copy to the Designated 

Federal Official attending any of the 

Councils’ public meetings. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on locations of 

the public meetings. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Review Process section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 

Office of Subsistence Management, 

Attention: Crystal Leonetti, Director; 

(907) 786–3888 or subsistence@

ios.doi.gov. For questions specific to 

National Forest System lands, contact 

Gregory Risdahl, Regional Subsistence 

Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, 

Alaska Region; (907) 302–7354 or 

gregory.risdahl@usda.gov. In 

compliance with the Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2023, please see Docket No. DOI– 

2024–0011 on https://

www.regulations.gov for a document 

that summarizes this proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under title VIII of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126), the 

Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Secretaries’’) jointly 

implement the Federal Subsistence 

Management Program (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘the Program’’). The Program 

provides a preference for take of fish 

and wildlife resources for subsistence 

uses on Federal public lands and waters 

in Alaska. Only Alaska residents of 

areas identified as rural are eligible to 

participate in the Program. The 

Secretaries published temporary 

regulations to carry out the Program in 

the Federal Register on June 29, 1990 

(55 FR 27114), and final regulations on 

May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). Program 

officials have subsequently amended 

these regulations a number of times. 

Because the Program is a joint effort 

between the Departments of the Interior 

and Agriculture, these regulations are 

located in two titles of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR): The 

Agriculture regulations are at title 36, 

‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public Property,’’ 

and the Interior regulations are at title 

50, ‘‘Wildlife and Fisheries,’’ at 36 CFR 

242.1–28 and 50 CFR 100.1–28, 

respectively. Consequently, to indicate 

that identical changes are proposed for 

regulations in both titles 36 and 50, in 

this document we will present 

references to specific sections of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1