1820-0578 83-C Change Worksheet1

(PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

CHANGE WORKSHEET

Agency/Subagency US Department of Education/OSERS		OMB Control Number 1820-0578
Enter only items that change Current Record New Record
Agency form number(s)	NA     	NA
Annual reporting and record keeping hour burden
Number of respondents	56	56
Total annual responses	56	56
Percent of these responses collected electronically	100%	100%
Total annual hours	110,880	96,656
Difference		-14,224
Explanation of difference Program Change		-14,224
Adjustment		NA     
Annual reporting and record keeping cost burden (in thousands of dollars)
Total annualized capital/startup costs	NA     	NA     
Total annual costs (O&M)	NA     	NA     
Total annualized cost requested	NA     	NA     
Difference		NA     
Explanation of difference Program Change		NA          
Adjustment		NA     
Other change**      
Signature of Senior Officer or designee:      	Date: ,	For OIRA Use            

**This form cannot be used to extend an expiration date

OMB 83-C

Attachment

The Part C SPP/APR was submitted for OMB-reapproval with the final proposed Part C regulations. The collection was approved in September 2011 and expires on August 31, 2014. States will submit using the Part C SPP/APR (expires August 31, 2014) for the first time on February 1, 2013. The Part B SPP/APR (1820-0624) was submitted for OMB-reapproval in 2012 and expires on July 31, 2015. We are requesting to make technical edits for the following reasons: 1) several elements of the Part C SPP/APR are parallel to those in the Part B SPP/APR, but do not align as a result of the timing of the two collections; and 2) we did not use consistent language in Part C indicators with similar reporting requirements. The proposed technical edits will decrease reporting burden by an estimated 254 hours per respondent for an overall reporting burden reduction of 14,224 hours (254 hours x 56 respondents).

Proposed Technical Edits:

Indicators 5 and 6: To conform to similarly situated Part B SPP/APR indicators, we propose to allow States to report on one set of improvement activities for Indicators 5 and 6 in cases where the improvement activities are the same or overlap. (Estimated Reporting Burden Reduction - 1 hours x 56 respondents = 56 hours)

Indicator 8: To be consistent with Indicators 1 and 7, which also allow the State to report using monitoring or data taken from the State data system, we clarify that, if the data are from the State database, the State must describe the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period) and how the data accurately reflect the data for infants and toddlers with Individualized Family Services Plans (IFSP) for the full reporting period.

Additionally, to be consistent with Indicators 1 and 7, we clarify that States are not required to include in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances documented in the child’s record. If a State chooses to include in its calculation children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances documented in the child’s record, these numbers are to be included in the numerator and denominator. States must include in the discussion of the data, the numbers the State used to determine its calculation under this indicator and report separately the number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances.

Indicators 10 and 11: To conform to similarly situated Part B SPP/APR indicators, we propose to delete these indicators from the Part C SPP/APR because States report data on the timeliness of State Complaint decisions and the timeliness of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests as part of the data they submit under IDEA section 618. Indicators 10 and 11 are compliance indicators where the underlying data are collected through another source (under a section 618 data collection), made available to the public (on the State’s website) and are not prescribed in either statute or regulation. Therefore, we are confident that, by eliminating these two indicators from APR reporting, we are able to reduce burden without limiting public access to the information and analysis. Further, eliminating Indicators 10 and 11 from the APR does not preclude the data from being considered when making annual determinations. (Estimated Reporting Burden Reduction - 250 hours x 56 respondents = 14,000 hours)

Indicators 12 and 13: To conform to similarly situated Part B SPP/APR indicators, we propose to allow States to report on one set of improvement activities for Indicators 12 and 13 in cases where the improvement activities are the same or overlap. (Estimated Reporting Burden Reduction - 1 hours x 56 respondents = 56 hours)

Indicator 14: To conform to Part B SPP/APR Indicator 20, we propose that States may, but are not required to, report data for this indicator. OSEP will use the Indicator 14 Rubric to calculate the State’s data for this indicator. States will have an opportunity to review and respond to OSEP’s calculation of the State’s data. (Estimated Reporting Burden Reduction - 2 hours x 56 respondents = 112 hours)