Proposed Priority and Definitions-State Personnel Development Grants, 22972-22977 [2020-08554]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22972-22977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08554]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0156]


Proposed Priority and Definitions--State Personnel Development 
Grants

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.323A.

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority and definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
(OSERS) proposes a funding priority and definitions under the State 
Personnel Development Grants (SPDG) program, which assists States in 
reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and 
personnel development in order to improve results for children with 
disabilities. We take this action to focus attention on the need to 
improve results for children with disabilities by empowering personnel 
to select professional development activities to improve their ability 
to serve children with disabilities. The Department may use the 
proposed priority and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2020 and later years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do 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 ``How to use Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and 
definitions, address them to Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5161, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076.
    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: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5161, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6673. Email: 
[email protected].
    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 and definitions. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority and 
definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of 
the proposed priority or definition that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priority would be challenging for new grantees to meet and, if 
so, how the proposed priority could be revised to address potential 
challenges for new grantees and reduce burden.
    Directed Question 1: The Department seeks information on the extent 
to which State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational 
agencies (LEAs) under Part B of IDEA, and, if appropriate, lead 
agencies (LAs) or local agencies under Part C of IDEA provide special 
education teachers and other personnel autonomy in selecting their 
professional development options.
    Directed Question 2: The Department seeks information on State and 
local professional development policies and requirements for special 
education teachers and other personnel, such as the number of hours of 
professional development personnel must fulfill or the competencies 
personnel must acquire to obtain or maintain applicable certifications.
    In responding to these questions, the Secretary specifically 
invites comments on how this proposed priority would change existing 
professional development requirements, policies, and practices and if 
it could increase the effectiveness of professional development for 
teachers and other personnel. When responding, commenters should keep 
in mind that the professional development provided must be consistent 
with the State personnel development plan (hereinafter referred to as a 
``State plan'') under section 653 of IDEA and the use of SPDG funds to 
implement authorized professional development activities under section 
654 of IDEA.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from the proposed priority and definitions. 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 all public 
comments about the proposed priority and definitions by accessing 
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 
5161, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between 
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
    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 and definitions. 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 this program is to assist SEAs 
in

[[Page 22973]]

reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and 
professional development in early intervention, educational, and 
transition services in order to improve results for children with 
disabilities.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

Proposed Priority

    This notice contains one proposed priority.

Choice in Professional Development

    Background: The purpose of this proposed priority is to increase 
the learning and engagement of personnel \1\ in their professional 
development experiences by empowering them to select professional 
development activities based on their individual needs in order to 
improve results for children with disabilities. Funds would be awarded 
competitively to SEAs to develop personalized professional development 
pilots to carry out the State plan under section 653 of IDEA and 
implement professional development activities that are authorized under 
the use of funds provisions under section 654 of IDEA. These 
professional development pilots would include stipends or other 
mechanisms, such as competency-based personalized learning, that 
provide teachers and other personnel choice in their professional 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Personnel'' means special education teachers, regular 
education teachers, principals, administrators, related services 
personnel, paraprofessionals, and early intervention personnel 
serving infants, toddlers, preschoolers, or children with 
disabilities, except where a particular category of personnel, such 
as related services personnel, is identified. Section 651(b) of 
IDEA; 20 U.S.C. 1451(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: To carry out the State plan under section 653 of IDEA 
described in its application, the SEA also may award contracts, 
subgrants, or both to other public and private entities, including, if 
appropriate, the LA under Part C of IDEA.
    SEAs, LEAs, LAs, or local agencies under Part C, if appropriate, 
would have flexibility in selecting the individual(s) or groups of 
personnel who would be provided with professional development options. 
For example, stipends could be targeted for personnel who teach 
children with disabilities in specific subjects such as math and 
science; personnel in schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement or targeted support and improvement under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); personnel 
preparing for leadership roles in or out of the classroom; or, if 
appropriate, personnel providing early intervention services. 
Applicants would describe how they will prioritize selecting 
individuals or groups of personnel serving rural children with 
disabilities or disadvantaged children with disabilities, such as 
children from low-income families and ensure there is an equitable 
distributions across these groups if demand for professional 
development exceeds what available funds can support.
    Personnel could then use the stipends or other mechanisms based on 
their individual needs to select evidence-based professional 
development that is designed to improve outcomes for children with 
disabilities.
    Although school-related factors such as curriculum, family 
engagement, and funding contribute to student academic performance, 
research suggests that the single most important school-based factor 
impacting students' achievement is their teacher (Hanushek, 2016; 
Stronge & Tucker, 2000). Accordingly, creating every opportunity for 
teachers and other education personnel to be fully engaged in high-
quality professional development that increases their knowledge and 
skills and is aligned to students' academic and other learning needs 
holds promise in boosting student achievement.
    Alignment of professional development to personnel needs is also 
critical. Research on adult learning (andragogy) posits that adults 
engage more deeply with learning opportunities when those opportunities 
are aligned to their interests (Trotter, 2006). Among educators, those 
interests can vary in the different phases of their careers. For 
example, novice teachers may seek to improve classroom management 
skills, content knowledge, and pedagogy. In contrast, more experienced 
teachers may want to develop the advanced skills necessary to take on 
new leadership roles or increase intensive intervention skills. 
Andragogy suggests that adult learning can be differentiated by the 
learner's need--that is, personalized--and indeed should be in order to 
maximize engagement in learning (Trotter, 2006).
    Leveraging the power of personalization, and the deep engagement 
with learning it promotes, is critical if professional development is 
to have an impact on educator practice. The Learning Policy Institute 
(2017) identifies a set of seven pillars for effective professional 
development. Among them are: (1) Active learning, (2) collaboration, 
(3) coaching and support, (4) feedback and reflection, and (5) training 
of a sustained duration (Learning Policy Institute, 2017). A common 
thread among each of these practices is that they require personnel to 
invest meaningful effort and attention. No matter how well designed by 
the provider, the promise of these pillars to improve personnel 
practice is only realized when educators engage fully with the content. 
Adult learning theory suggests personalization is one way to make this 
engagement more likely (Trotter, 2006).
    Giving educators the financial and other resources needed to 
personalize their professional development, consistent with their needs 
and the needs of their students, has the potential to maximize benefits 
for them and their students. Research indicates that having educators 
create professional learning plans and giving them the freedom to 
select the activities that will support them in achieving the goals 
outlined in those plans could have positive effects on student 
achievement and attainment (Rabbitt, et al., 2015). Thus, it may be the 
case that a stipend program or other mechanisms to provide personnel 
with choice in selecting professional development options could magnify 
the efficacy of other personalization efforts by giving teachers access 
to options that otherwise may have been inaccessible due to 
professional development requirements or that were cost prohibitive.
    For these reasons, this proposed priority would support innovative 
projects that develop and test approaches to providing personnel with 
professional learning stipends or other mechanisms to provide personnel 
with choice in selecting professional development options. With the 
autonomy to identify instructionally relevant professional learning, 
teachers and other personnel can improve their knowledge and skills and 
better support student achievement and other desirable outcomes for 
children with disabilities.
    We intend for this proposed priority to supplement the absolute 
priority 2, the SPDG statutory priority, published in the Federal 
Register on February 13, 2017 (82 FR 10470),\2\ as well as other 
relevant statutory and regulatory priorities established by the 
Department. Specifically, all applicants must meet the statutory 
requirements in sections 651 through 655 of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1451-
1455. Applicants may apply for this proposed priority as well, but 
would not be required to do so to be eligible for an award.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/13/2017-02895/applications-for-new-awards-state-personnel-development-grants-spdg-program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22974]]

    Projects must be awarded and operated in a manner consistent with 
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and 
the Federal civil rights laws.
    Proposed Priority: The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund 
SPDG grants to SEAs that empower teachers and other personnel to select 
professional development that meets their individual needs in order to 
improve results for children with disabilities. States will meet the 
priority if they describe in their application how they will develop 
personalized professional development projects to carry out their State 
plan under section 653 of IDEA and to implement professional 
development activities that are consistent with the use of funds 
provisions in section 654 of IDEA. This would be accomplished by using 
funds under the SPDG program for stipends or other mechanisms to 
provide personnel with choice in selecting professional development 
options that will count toward State or local professional development 
requirements, as appropriate, such as the number of hours personnel 
must fill or the competencies they must acquire to obtain or retain 
certification, and that are designed to meet their individual needs and 
thus improve results for children with disabilities.
    Applicants must--
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will develop personalized 
professional development activities using stipends or other mechanisms 
that provide personnel choice in professional development options 
designed to meet their individual needs and count toward State or local 
professional development requirements and thus improve results for 
children with disabilities;
    (b) Describe how the State will select the individual(s) or groups 
of personnel that will be provided with professional development 
options, including the extent to which applicants will prioritize 
selecting individuals or groups of personnel serving rural children 
with disabilities or disadvantaged children with disabilities, such as 
children from low-income families. If applicable, applicants should 
specify how they will prioritize personnel if demand for professional 
development among the individuals or groups of personnel that the 
applicant proposes to serve exceed what available funds can support.
    (c) Describe how the State will create a list of approved 
professional development options that meet the requirements of the SPDG 
program. This description should include how the applicant will engage 
with a range of stakeholders, including school administrators, 
personnel serving students with disabilities, families of students with 
disabilities and individuals with disabilities, and other State or 
local agencies serving individuals with disabilities, such as juvenile 
justice agencies, to determine which professional development options 
it will offer. Specifically, professional development options must--
    (1) Use evidence-based (as defined in this notice) professional 
development methods that will increase implementation of evidence-based 
practices and result in improved outcomes for children with 
disabilities;
    (2) Include ongoing assistance that supports the implementation of 
evidence-based practices with fidelity (as defined in this notice); and
    (3) Use technology to more efficiently and effectively provide 
ongoing professional development to personnel, including to personnel 
in rural areas and in urban or high-need local educational agencies 
(LEAs) (as defined in this notice); and
    (d) If applicable, describe the steps that personnel would need to 
take to request professional development options not already on a list 
of approved professional development options, the justification that 
personnel would need to provide to demonstrate how the selected options 
would improve results for children with disabilities, and how personnel 
would be notified if their request was approved or disapproved in 
writing and within 14 days.

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)).

Definitions

    We propose the following definitions for use with this proposed 
priority and with the SPDG program. We propose these definitions to 
ensure that applicants have a clear understanding of how we are using 
these terms. We propose to use definitions the Department has adopted 
elsewhere and provide the source of existing definitions in 
parentheses.
    Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by 
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, 
or evidence that demonstrates a rationale. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare 
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are 
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment 
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. 
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, 
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental 
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., 
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression 
discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 
standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:
    (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for 
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the 
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to 
receive the project component (the control group).
    (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project 
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning 
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental 
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of 
outcomes.
    (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case 
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in 
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to 
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the 
treatment. (34 CFR 77.1)

[[Page 22975]]

    Fidelity means the delivery of instruction in the way in which it 
was designed to be delivered. (77 FR 45944)
    High-need LEA means, in accordance with section 2102(3) of the 
ESEA, an LEA--
    (a) That serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with 
incomes below the poverty line (as that term is defined in section 
8101(41) of the ESEA), or for which not less than 20 percent of the 
children served by the LEA are from families with incomes below the 
poverty line; and
    (b) For which there is (1) a high percentage of teachers not 
teaching in the academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers 
were trained to teach, or (2) a high percentage of teachers with 
emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing.
    Lead agency means the agency designated by the State's Governor 
under section 635(a)(10) of IDEA and 34 CFR 303.120 that receives funds 
under section 643 of IDEA to administer the State's responsibilities 
under part C of IDEA. (34 CFR 303.22)
    Local educational agency means a public board of education or other 
public authority legally constituted within a State for either 
administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service 
function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, 
county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a 
State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are 
recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public 
elementary schools or secondary schools. (Section 602(19) of IDEA (20 
U.S.C. 1401(19)))
    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, 
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence 
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of 
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices 
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers). (34 
CFR 77.1)
    Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the 
effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant 
outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence 
base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice 
guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a 
``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant 
outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially 
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, 
that--
    (A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or 
a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with 
statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression 
methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a 
comparison group); and
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation 
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being 
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet 
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook. 
(34 CFR 77.1)
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) 
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the 
specific goals of the program. (34 CFR 77.1)
    State educational agency means the State board of education or 
other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision 
of public elementary schools and secondary schools, or, if there is no 
such officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the Governor 
or by State law. (Section 602(32) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1401(32)))
    Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness 
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive 
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' for the 
corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' on a 
relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence, 
with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative 
effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC 
using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by 
the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, 
and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this 
requirement. (34 CFR 77.1)
    What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the 
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards 
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 
CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can 
meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with 
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and 
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of 
evidence as described in the Handbook documentation. (34 CFR 77.1)

References

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., and Gardner, M., with assistance 
from Espinoza, D. (2017). Effective teacher professional 
development. Learning Policy Institute.
Hanushek, E.A. (2016). What matters for student achievement. 
Education Next, 16(2), 18-26.
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and 
determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 435-464.
Rabbitt, B., Finegan, J., & Kellogg, N. (2019). Research-Based, 
online learning for teachers: What the research literature tells us 
about the design of platforms and virtual experiences for working 
adult learners. The Learning Accelerator.
Stronge, J.H., & Tucker, P.D. (2000). Teacher evaluation and student 
achievement. National Education Association.
Trotter, Y. (2006). Adult learning theories: Impacting professional 
development programs. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 8-13.

Final Priority and Definitions

    We will announce the final priority and definitions in a document 
in the

[[Page 22976]]

Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and definitions 
after considering responses to this document 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 the proposed priority and definitions, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

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 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.
    OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department 
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that 
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new rule must be fully offset by the elimination of existing 
costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does 
not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income transfers 
between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding 
discretionary grant programs. Because the proposed priority and 
definitions would be utilized in connection with a discretionary grant 
program, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
    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 the proposed priority and definitions only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. 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.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration Size Standards define ``small entities'' 
as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below 
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small 
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), 
with a population of less than 50,000.
    Participation in the SPDG program is voluntary. In addition, the 
only eligible entities for this program are SEAs, which do not meet the 
definition of a small entity. For these reasons, the proposed priority 
and definitions would impose no burden on small entities.
    We invite comments from small eligible 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.
    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

[[Page 22977]]

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 documents of this Department 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 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.

Mark Schultz,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration. Delegated the 
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-08554 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P