        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 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).

            1 All references to a statute in this priority are to sections of IDEA unless otherwise noted.

          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

            2 For 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).

        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

            3 Under 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.

            4 Under 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.

        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.

            5 Under 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).

        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

        (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

            6 This is a partial list identified by OSEP.

        (a) Decreased expenditures of non-Federal 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 non-Federal 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.

            7 Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort Flexibility Due to Recovery Act IDEA, Part B Funds (ED-OIG/L09L0011).

        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

            8 See OSEP Memorandum 10-5, dated December 2, 2009 (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep10-05maintenanceoffinancialsupport.pdf).

        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

            9 Each 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.

        (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

        (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;

            10 The 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.

        (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;

            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 one-time, 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.

        (iv) How it proposes to provide targeted, specialized TA,12
           which must identify—

            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 labor-intensive 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.

        (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—

            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.

        (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 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 person-loading 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, Department-sponsored 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.

        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


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 080721859-81206-01]
        RIN 0648-AX01
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska, Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a regulatory amendment to exempt fishermen using dinglebar fishing gear in federal waters of the Gulf of Alaska from the requirement to carry a vessel monitoring system (VMS). This action is necessary because the risk of damage posed to protected corals in the Gulf of Alaska by the dinglebar gear fishery is minor and insufficient to justify the costs of VMS. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than November 3, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AX01, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7356.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
        The FMP designates essential fish habitat and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) in the Gulf of Alaska. HAPCs are areas within essential fish habitat that are of particular ecological importance to the long-term sustainability of managed species, are of a rare type, or are especially susceptible to degradation or development. The Council may designate specific sites as HAPCs and may develop management measures to protect habitat features within them. In order to protect HAPCs, certain habitat protection areas and habitat conservation zones have been designated. A habitat protection area is an area of special, rare habitat features where fishing activities that may adversely affect the habitat are restricted.

        Two HAPCs are designated in the Fairweather Grounds and one HAPC is designated near Cape Ommaney in the Gulf of Alaska. Within these HAPCs, five Coral Habitat Protection Areas were identified where high concentrations of sensitive corals occur. Fishing is restricted only in the Coral Habitat Protection Areas, not the entire HAPC. The Coral Habitat Protection Areas cover a total area of 13.5 square nautical miles and were established to protect sensitive and slow-growing corals (Primnoa species) that provide a rare and important habitat type for rockfish and other species.

        Management measures restrict fishing activity within the five GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas. Anchoring and the use of bottom contact gear by any federally permitted fishing vessel in these five areas are prohibited. Anchoring and fishing with bottom contact gear adversely affect coral habitat by breaking and injuring the coral and disturbing the substrates to which corals attach. Colonies of Primnoa species are easily damaged or dislodged from the seafloor if contacted by fishing gear and recovery after disturbance is likely to take decades. NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement uses vessel monitoring systems (VMS) to enforce the anchoring and fishing with bottom contact gear prohibitions in the Coral Habitat Protection Areas.
        Bottom contact fishing gear includes nonpelagic trawl, dredge, dinglebar, pot, and hook-and-line gear. Nonpelagic trawl, dredge, and dinglebar gear are considered mobile bottom contact fishing gear. Dinglebar gear is similar to salmon troll gear with the addition of a heavy metal bar that keeps the hooks close to the seafloor. Of the types of mobile bottom contact fishing gear, only dinglebar gear is used off the coast of Southeast Alaska in the State of Alaska-managed fishery for lingcod.
        Although lingcod is not managed under the FMP, if a vessel catches and retains any groundfish managed under the FMP in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska (EEZ), it also is considered to be fishing for groundfish, and therefore must carry a Federal Fishing Permit. Certain species of rockfish are required to be retained (demersal shelf rockfish and dark rockfish) under the FMP. Rockfish are common bycatch in the state-managed dinglebar fishery for lingcod, and therefore these vessels are subject to the requirements of the FMP and must carry a Federal Fishing Permit. All federally permitted vessels with mobile bottom contact gear onboard are subject to VMS requirements (50 CFR 679.7(a)(22)). Consequently, vessels fishing for lingcod with dinglebar gear also must carry a transmitting VMS onboard.
        Vessel monitoring systems allow NMFS to enforce regulations over a large area. VMS requirements went into effect June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36694), for all vessels fishing in the GOA and using mobile bottom contact fishing gear. Vessels participating in the dinglebar fishery for lingcod in federal waters of Southeast Alaska first used VMS units in 2007.
        Information about the GOA dinglebar fishery for lingcod is available from two sources: VMS data from 2007, and logbook data submitted to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). Logbook data are self-reported by fishermen and estimate the area, average depth, and other characteristics of the fishing operation. These reports are subjective and are not routinely cross-checked with VMS or other data.

        Logbook data indicate that fishing depths may have limited overlap with the depths where sensitive corals occur. In general, Primnoa species in the HAPCs are found deeper than 70 fathoms. Most of the area within the Coral Habitat Protection Areas is deeper than 80 fathoms (86.1 to 100 percent across the five areas). Ninety-six percent of the logbook reports from 1998-2002 indicate fishing at average depths of less than 80 fathoms, and 80 percent at depths less than 50 fathoms, whereas only four percent reported fishing at an average depth deeper than 80 fathoms. Between 2003 and 2007, all fishing was reported at depths averaging less than 80 fathoms, and only two percent of the observations fished between 70 and 80 fathoms. During this same period, 93 percent of the logbook reports indicated fishing at depths shallower than 50 fathoms. These data suggest that fishing in recent years has occurred at shallower depths. On the assumption that the reported depths are averages, some fishing took place at depths greater than these reported values. Precise fishing depth data are unavailable.
        VMS units were required for the first time in this fishery in 2007. Landings records and VMS data indicate that only eight vessels participated in the dinglebar fishery for lingcod in federal waters off Southeast Alaska in 2007 and participation in the fishery has been declining over the past 10 years. All these vessels carried VMS units as a requirement for participation in the fishery. The VMS data show that in 2007 fishery participants did not fish in the GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas and very little fishing activity occurred at all in the Cape Ommaney area. The VMS requirement was likely a deterrent to fishing in protected areas.

        NMFS also correlated VMS data with information about bottom substrates in the HAPCs. This analysis revealed that the dinglebar fishery for lingcod targets a different substrate type (folded sandstone) than the substrates that typically support Primnoa species corals (bedrock and boulders). Small pinnacles in the areas of high coral concentrations are also a likely deterrent to fishing in those areas with dinglebar gear.
        In June 2008, the Council adopted its preferred alternative to exempt fishermen using dinglebar gear from the VMS requirement. After reviewing the analysis, the Council concluded that any risk of illegal fishing and damage to corals in the restricted areas of the Cape Ommaney and Fairweather Grounds HAPCs were insufficient to justify monitoring by VMS, given the cost imposed on lingcod fishermen, the small scale of the fishery (in terms of number of participants, duration, size of vessels, and revenues generated), and the limited spatial overlap of the fishery with restricted areas of the HAPCs.

        The total cost for acquisition and installation of a VMS unit is estimated at $2,068 per vessel. The Pacific States Marine Fish Commission reimburses a portion of the initial cost to the vessel owner, but this still represents a cost to society. Annual maintenance and operation costs are estimated at $630. A full discussion of the costs of VMS is provided in the RIR for this proposed action (see ADDRESSES). The Council reiterated its previous decision that the need for VMS monitoring should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for individual fisheries. Consequently, the VMS exemption proposed in this action applies specifically to dinglebar gear with respect to the five Coral Habitat Protection Areas currently identified in the GOA. Should the Council identify new GOA HAPCs in the future, the need for VMS monitoring for all gear types will be examined with respect to those areas. This proposed action would not exempt vessels using dinglebar gear for other fisheries from VMS requirements. Likewise, the proposed action would not exempt vessels fishing for lingcod with other gear types from the VMS requirement.
        This action proposes to exempt vessels that use dinglebar gear from the VMS requirements at §§ 679.7(a)(22) and 679.28(f)(6)(iii) by revising the text in these paragraphs to specify that the VMS requirement only applies to two types of mobile bottom contact gear, non-pelagic trawl gear and dredge gear, not dinglebar gear. This change would not remove dinglebar gear from the definition of mobile bottom contact gear.
        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.
        The objective of this proposed action is to prevent damage to corals from the use of dinglebar gear while ensuring that regulations are applied without imposing undue costs on the fishermen using dinglebar gear. Evidence suggests that the dinglebar fishery for lingcod does not overlap with areas where sensitive coral species occur, so the VMS requirements are an unnecessary burden to a small fleet. This action would directly regulate all vessels with Federal Fishing Permits carrying dinglebar gear in the EEZ. All such vessels are considered “small entities” for purposes of the RFA. NMFS has identified eight to twelve small entities that would be affected by this proposed rule. All of the directly regulated individuals would be expected to benefit from this action relative to the status quo alternative because they would not be required to purchase and maintain VMS units in order to participate in the lingcod fishery.
        NMFS has not identified a significant alternative to the proposed action that would meet the objectives of the action and would have a smaller adverse impact on directly regulated small entities. The objectives of the action were to avoid damage to protected habitat without imposing undue burdens on fishermen using dinglebar gear. The proposed rule completely relieves the financial burden of the VMS. No other significant alternative would have a smaller impact on directly regulated small entities. The Council considered an alternative that would have had the effect of lifting the restriction on fishing by dinglebar vessels within the protected habitat as well as the VMS requirement. However, the Council rejected this alternative without further analysis because its intent was not to lift restrictions on fishing by a specific gear type that might impact bottom habitat, but to lift an enforcement measure if that measure imposed costs disproportionate to its efficacy.
        There are no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements associated with this proposed rule. No federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action were identified in the analysis.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries.

          Dated: September 29, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; and 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447.
          2. In § 679.7, paragraph (a)(22) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.7
          Prohibitions.

          (a) * * *
          (22) VMS for non-pelagic trawl and dredge gear vessels in the GOA. Operate a federally permitted vessel in the GOA with non-pelagic trawl or dredge gear onboard without an operable VMS and without complying with the requirements at § 679.28.

          3. In § 679.28, paragraph (f)(6)(iii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.28
          Equipment and operational requirements.

          (f) * * *
          (6) * * *
          (iii) You operate a vessel required to be federally permitted with non-pelagic trawl or dredge gear onboard in reporting areas located in the GOA or operate a federally permitted vessel with non-pelagic trawl or dredge gear onboard in adjacent State waters; or

      [FR Doc. E8-23456 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S