Final Priorities-Rehabilitation Training: Innovative Rehabilitation Training Program, 47664-47668 [2020-16958]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47664-47668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0163]


Final Priorities--Rehabilitation Training: Innovative 
Rehabilitation Training Program

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

ACTION: Final priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities 
under the Innovative Rehabilitation Training program, Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.263D/E/F. The Department 
may use one or more of these priorities for competitions in fiscal year 
(FY) 2020 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal 
financial assistance on an identified national need to improve the 
knowledge and skills of vocational rehabilitation (VR) personnel in 
providing VR services to individuals with disabilities and improve the 
Client Assistance Program (CAP) personnel in advising, informing, and 
advocating on behalf of VR participants and applicants with 
disabilities.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective September 8, 
2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cassandra P. Shoffler, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5122, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7827. 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: 
    Purpose of Program: The Innovative Rehabilitation Training program 
is designed to develop (a) new types of training programs for 
rehabilitation personnel and to demonstrate the effectiveness of these 
new types of training programs for rehabilitation personnel in 
providing rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities; (b) 
new and improved methods of training rehabilitation personnel so that 
there may be a more effective delivery of rehabilitation services to 
individuals with disabilities by designated State rehabilitation 
agencies and designated State rehabilitation units or other public or 
non-profit rehabilitation service agencies or organizations; and (c) 
new innovative training programs for VR professionals and 
paraprofessionals to have a 21st-century understanding of the evolving 
labor force and the needs of individuals with disabilities so they can 
more effectively provide VR services to individuals with disabilities.
    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 772.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 385 and 387.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this 
competition in the Federal Register on April 27, 2020 (85 FR 23266). 
The NPP contained background information and our reasons for proposing 
the particular priorities.
    There are some differences between Priority 1 in the NPP and the 
final Priority 1 adopted here, as discussed in the Analysis of Comments 
and Changes section of this document. The differences between the 
proposed and final Priority 2 and Priority 3 are minor editorial and 
technical corrections. We are not establishing Proposed Priority 4 as a 
final priority through this regulatory action. Proposed Priority 4 was 
also proposed for Department-wide use in the Secretary's Administrative 
Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the Federal 
Register on November 29, 2019 (84 FR 65734). In order to ensure that 
the priority would be available for this competition, RSA proposed it 
in the NPP for this competition as well. The Secretary's Final 
Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs were 
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640). 
Therefore, there is no need to adopt the priority again in this 
document.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 79 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities.
    We group major issues according to subject. We discuss substantive 
issues under each of the priorities to which they pertain. Generally, 
we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested 
changes the law does not authorize us to make. In addition, we do not 
address general comments that raise concerns not directly related to 
the proposed priorities.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities from the NPP follows.

Priority 1--Innovative Rehabilitation Training Project, Client 
Assistance Program

    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
priority would merge CAP training with academic programs for VR 
counselors and, thus, fail to meet the training needs of CAP 
professionals, whose knowledge, competencies, and goals are 
substantially different from those of VR counselors. These commenters' 
concern is based on a statement in the NPP that indicated that the 
project must develop a new or substantially improved training program, 
including stand-alone modules to be incorporated into an existing 
academic degree program for educating VR counselors or other VR 
professionals and paraprofessionals.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that the CAP professionals' 
competencies and goals are substantially different from those of VR 
counselors and that a combined academic program for both VR and CAP 
professionals would not meet the training needs of CAP professionals. 
This priority was not intended to create a merged academic program for 
both CAP and VR personnel. The CAP training program will continue to be 
a program geared to the professional needs and the required knowledge, 
skills, and competencies of CAP professionals. The established, stand-
alone modules referenced in this document do not represent the entire 
CAP training program. The training program includes ad hoc training 
activities and ongoing technical assistance, in addition to the 
established, stand-alone modules. Some, but not all, of these stand-
alone modules may be incorporated into existing VR academic degree 
programs, for example, to improve VR professionals' and 
paraprofessionals' understanding about the CAP program and the 
individuals the program serves. The majority of training activities are 
focused on the professional needs and required knowledge, skills, and 
competencies of CAP professionals. We are revising the priority to make 
this distinction clear.
    Changes: The Department added examples of innovative CAP training 
delivery methods and knowledge translation techniques in Priority 1. We 
added language to Priority 1 to: (1) Incorporate multiple references to 
the program's focus on the training needs of CAP professionals as 
distinct from those of VR professionals; (2) specify that the

[[Page 47665]]

training plan must be based on the identified training needs of CAP 
professionals to effectively carry out the Client Assistance Program 
responsibilities under section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 
(Rehabilitation Act); and (3) provide context that the purpose of any 
stand-alone modules incorporated into VR academic degree or short-term 
training programs is to promote greater understanding among VR 
professionals and paraprofessionals and individuals studying to become 
VR professionals and paraprofessionals about the CAP program and the 
individuals that it serves.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
priority would fail to meet CAP professionals' training needs, because 
of its apparent focus on a fixed, academic curriculum rather than on a 
flexible training program that adapts to changing circumstances and 
emerging challenges in the field, as reported by the CAP professionals 
themselves. These commenters' concern is based on the statement in the 
NPP that the training program or modules must be developed by the end 
of the first year of the project period and piloted, refined, 
implemented, evaluated, and disseminated in years two, three, four, and 
five of the performance period. Implicit in the commenters' comments 
about a combined program for VR and CAP professionals is the concern 
that the Department has not clearly enough delineated the CAP priority.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that the CAP training activities 
and materials must be responsive to changing circumstances and emerging 
challenges in the field. Conversely, CAP training also encompasses 
subjects ranging from fiscal management to compliance with the 
Rehabilitation Act, which are relatively stable and lend themselves to 
established training modules. In addition, the Department acknowledges 
that Proposed Priority 1 did not clearly describe what would constitute 
innovative training delivery and knowledge translation methods and 
techniques. Accordingly, the Department has determined that adding 
examples could support entities preparing applications and, in turn, 
strengthen the CAP Innovative Training program.
    Changes: We added language to topic area one of Priority 1 to 
indicate that the CAP training program will consist of established 
training modules, ad hoc training activities developed in response to 
emerging circumstances or trends, and stand-alone training modules that 
can be incorporated into existing academic degree or short-term VR 
training programs. All training options will be subject to periodic 
review and updates. In addition, the Department added examples of 
innovative CAP training delivery methods and knowledge translation 
techniques in Priority 1.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
priority did not adequately reflect the CAP program requirements under 
section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act, including those related to 
individual and systems advocacy; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990; and coordination of CAP training and technical assistance 
activities with those for the Protection and Advocacy of Individual 
Rights (PAIR) program.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that CAP responsibilities under 
the Rehabilitation Act are at the heart of the CAP training program. 
The need for continued training based on the CAP responsibilities under 
the Rehabilitation Act was implicit in the proposed priority. It is 
appropriate to emphasize this basis for the CAP training in the final 
priority.
    Changes: We added language to topic area one of Priority 1 to 
establish as key focal points of CAP training the following items: (1) 
CAP professionals' knowledge, skills, and competencies regarding CAP 
program responsibilities under section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act 
and the VR service provision requirements in the Rehabilitation Act, 
particularly in support of the implementation of key provisions of 
WIOA; and (2) training and technical assistance activities, which must 
be coordinated with the entity providing training and technical 
assistance to the PAIR program, consistent with section 509 of the 
Rehabilitation Act.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
priorities did not address CAP professionals' need for ongoing 
technical assistance regarding legal or policy issues related to the 
Rehabilitation Act.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that ongoing technical assistance 
on legal or policy issues related to the Rehabilitation Act is 
necessary for CAP professionals to apply knowledge gained through CAP 
training situations and circumstances that arise in their States.
    Changes: We have added language to topic area one of Priority 1 to 
require the CAP training program to incorporate ongoing technical 
assistance related to topics addressed in the training modules and ad 
hoc training activities, including consultation and technical 
assistance on the options for applying existing law, regulations, and 
RSA-issued guidance to specific factual circumstances that arise in the 
course of CAP professionals' individual or systems advocacy efforts.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
priorities did not address CAP professionals' need for training on 
essential supporting skills, including advocacy and fiscal management.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that strong advocacy and fiscal 
management skills are essential for CAP professionals to effectively 
fulfill their responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act.
    Changes: We have added language to topic area one of final Priority 
1 to incorporate the following topics among the five required training 
subject areas: (1) Program and fiscal management training to promote 
the cost-effective use of Federal and non-Federal resources and (2) 
leadership, relationship-building, outreach, and individual and systems 
advocacy skills to promote effective interaction by CAP professionals 
with VR clients and applicants, State VR agencies, State Rehabilitation 
Councils, and other stakeholders.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In the background section of Priority 1, the NPP 
included examples of the expanded opportunities for employment and 
career advancement under WIOA that are to be addressed in the CAP 
Innovative Rehabilitation Training program. The Department considers it 
helpful to include these examples in the text of the final priority 
itself, so that they will be easily referenced by applicants.
    Changes: The Department added to Priority 1 the following examples 
of the expanded opportunities for employment and career advancement to 
be addressed through the CAP Innovative Rehabilitation Training 
program: Pre-employment transition services, work-based learning, 
apprenticeships, customized employment, career pathways, and 
postsecondary credentials, including advanced degrees.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Priority 1 requires a process of continuous feedback 
and improvement under the CAP training program. The Department is 
adding that a process of continuous evaluation is also required and is 
providing examples in this requirement to clarify the priority's 
intent, increase the quality of applications, and, thereby, strengthen

[[Page 47666]]

the CAP Innovative Rehabilitation Training program.
    Changes: The Department clarified that continuous evaluation is 
also required and provided examples pertinent to the process of 
feedback, evaluation, and improvement in Priority 1.

Priority 2--Innovative Rehabilitation Training Program, Assisting and 
Supporting Individuals With Disabilities Pursuing Self-Employment, 
Business Ownership, and Telecommuting

    Comment: One commenter supported the priority topic area.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment and the support 
for the priority topic area.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3--Innovative Rehabilitation Training Program, Field Initiated

    Comment: Many commenters stated the importance of and need for 
vocational evaluation training programs in the VR field.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters that 
vocational evaluation training is important. In FY 2019, the Department 
held a competition and funded a five-year award under the Innovative 
Rehabilitation Training program with a topic area called ``career 
assessments for VR service recipients'' to address the importance of 
vocational evaluation in identifying and providing VR services. The 
Department does not believe that it is necessary to hold a second 
competition in this topic area in such a short time. However, 
applicants under this field-initiated priority may propose a topic in 
vocational evaluation.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4--Applications From New Potential Grantees

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department not 
eliminate applications from institutions of higher education that 
received grants under this program in the past and have the individuals 
with expertise and experience in delivering training programs.
    Discussion: Priority 4 is designed to attract new applications, but 
does not preclude applications from eligible entities, including 
institutions of higher education that received a grant under this 
program. Eligible applicants who have received a grant in the past, 
have an active grant in another program, or have an active 
discretionary grant under this program, including through membership in 
a group application, may still submit an application and be considered 
for funding under other priorities.
    It should be noted that Priority 4 was also proposed on November 
29, 2019, in the Secretary's Administrative Priorities for 
Discretionary Grant Programs (84 FR 65734). In order to ensure that 
Priority 4 would be available for this competition, RSA proposed it in 
the NPP for this competition as well. The Secretary's Final 
Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs were 
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640). 
Therefore, there is no need to adopt the priority again in this 
document.
    Changes: As a Department-wide priority for applications from new 
potential grantees has already been established, Proposed Priority 4 is 
not established through this regulatory action.

Final Priorities

Priority 1--Innovative Rehabilitation Training Program, Client 
Assistance Program

    A project under this priority must increase the CAP professionals' 
knowledge about all requirements governing the CAP program and VR 
services under the Rehabilitation Act, while also increasing the 
capacity of CAP professionals to inform VR clients and applicants about 
the expanded opportunities available under the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA) and provide the assistance and advocacy that the 
clients and applicants need. The project must enhance CAP 
professionals' knowledge, skills, and competencies in each of the 
following required subject areas: (a) CAP responsibilities in section 
112 of the Rehabilitation Act and the VR service provision requirements 
in the Rehabilitation Act, particularly in support of the 
implementation of key provisions of WIOA; (b) expanded opportunities 
for quality employment under WIOA and the pertinent provisions 
regarding unified and combined State plans, common performance 
measures, and the workforce development system, including pre-
employment transition services, work-based learning, apprenticeships, 
customized employment, career pathways, and postsecondary credentials, 
including advanced degrees; (c) opportunities and challenges for 
individuals with the most significant disabilities, students and youth 
with disabilities, and traditionally underserved populations, including 
those at the intersection of poverty and disability; (d) program and 
fiscal management training to promote the effective use of Federal and 
non-Federal resources under the Rehabilitation Act; and (e) leadership, 
relationship-building, outreach, and individual and systems advocacy 
skills to promote effective interaction by CAP professionals with VR 
clients and applicants, State VR agencies, State Rehabilitation 
Councils, and other stakeholders.
    The project must develop a new or substantially improved training 
program meeting the professional needs and the required knowledge, 
skills, and competencies of CAP professionals. The CAP Training program 
will consist of established, stand-alone training modules as well as ad 
hoc training activities developed in response to emerging circumstances 
or trends. Stand-alone training modules may include selected topics 
that can be incorporated into existing academic degree or short-term VR 
training programs, for example, to promote greater understanding among 
VR professionals and paraprofessionals about the CAP program and the 
individuals that the program serves.
    The CAP training program will also encompass ongoing technical 
assistance related to topics addressed in the training modules and ad 
hoc training activities, including consultation and technical 
assistance on options for applying existing law, regulations, and RSA-
issued guidance to specific factual circumstances that arise in the 
course of CAP professionals' individual or systems advocacy efforts.
    Training delivery methods must encompass: (a) State-of-the-art 
communication tools and platforms, including an interactive project 
website, distance learning and convening technologies, social media, 
and searchable databases; and (b) the latest knowledge translation 
methods and techniques, including engaging training recipients with 
different learning styles.
    The project must develop an overall training plan specifying the 
major components (e.g., training modules, ad hoc training activities, 
and ongoing technical assistance), informational resources (e.g., 
curricula, materials, searchable databases, communities of practice), 
and modes of delivery (e.g., in-person, virtual). The training plan 
must be based on the identified training needs of CAP professionals to 
effectively carry out the CAP responsibilities under title IV, section 
112 of the Rehabilitation Act.
    The training modules must be developed by the end of the first year 
of the project period and piloted, refined, implemented, evaluated, and

[[Page 47667]]

disseminated in years two, three, four, and five of the project period. 
The ad hoc training activities and technical assistance will be 
developed on an ongoing basis in response to circumstances and emerging 
needs.
    A process for continuous feedback, evaluation, and improvement to 
ensure that the training modules, the ad hoc training activities, and 
technical assistance are responsive to the needs of CAP professionals 
throughout years two, three, four, and five must be included. This 
process may include surveys, success stories, and analyses of data 
elements specified in the Annual CAP Performance Report (RSA-227).
    The training and technical assistance must be of sufficient scope, 
intensity, and duration for CAP professionals to achieve increased 
skill, knowledge, and competence in the topic areas.
    The applicant must review and incorporate the resources developed 
by the RSA VR Technical Assistance Centers and Demonstration and 
Training projects, available at the National Clearinghouse for 
Rehabilitation Training Materials, and other Federal and nongovernment 
sources, as appropriate, in developing its training and technical 
assistance curricula and delivery methods.
    Training and technical assistance activities also must be 
coordinated with the entity providing training and technical assistance 
to the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights program, consistent 
with section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Priority 2--Innovative Rehabilitation Training Program, Assisting and 
Supporting Individuals With Disabilities Pursuing Self-Employment, 
Business Ownership, and Telecommuting

    A project in the area of assisting and supporting individuals with 
disabilities pursuing self-employment, business ownership, and 
telecommuting must develop a new or substantially improved and, to the 
extent possible, evidence-based \1\ training program, including stand-
alone modules and instructional materials to be incorporated into an 
existing academic degree program for educating VR counselors or other 
VR professionals and paraprofessionals or into short-term training for 
VR professionals, or both. The training program or modules must be 
developed by the end of the first year of the project period and 
piloted, refined, implemented, evaluated, and disseminated in years 
two, three, four, and five of the project period. A process for 
continuous feedback, evaluation, and improvement to ensure the training 
program or modules are responsive to the needs of the VR professionals 
and paraprofessionals throughout years two, three, four, and five must 
be included. This process may include evidence collected from surveys 
or success stories or other forms of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purpose of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means 
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by 
evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), 
where a key project component included in the project's logic model 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The training must be of sufficient scope, intensity, and duration 
for VR professionals, paraprofessionals, and individuals studying to 
become VR professionals and paraprofessionals to achieve increased 
skill, knowledge, and competence in the area of assisting and 
supporting individuals with disabilities pursuing self-employment, 
business ownership, and telecommuting.

Priority 3--Innovative Rehabilitation Training Program, Field Initiated

    A field-initiated project must clearly identify the topic to be 
addressed and provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the need for 
the innovative rehabilitation training in a proposed new topic area or, 
in areas for which there is existing training, demonstrate that the 
existing training is not adequately meeting the needs of VR 
professionals, paraprofessionals, and individuals studying to become VR 
professionals and paraprofessionals.
    The project must develop a new or substantially improved and, to 
the extent possible, evidence-based \2\ training program, including 
stand-alone modules and instructional materials to be incorporated into 
an existing academic degree program for educating VR counselors or 
other VR professionals and paraprofessionals, or into short-term 
training for VR professionals, or both. The training program or modules 
must be developed by the end of the first year of the project period 
and piloted, refined, implemented, evaluated, and disseminated in years 
two, three, four, and five of the project period. A process for 
continuous feedback, evaluation, and improvement to ensure the training 
program or modules are responsive to the needs of the VR professionals 
and paraprofessionals throughout years two, three, four, and five must 
be included. This process may include evidence collected from surveys 
or success stories or other forms of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purpose of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means 
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by 
evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), 
where a key project component included in the project's logic model 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The training must be of sufficient scope, intensity, and duration 
for VR professionals, paraprofessionals, and individuals studying to 
become VR professionals and paraprofessionals to achieve increased 
skill, knowledge, and competence in the topic area.
    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)).
    This notice 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 one or more of these priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    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 the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--

[[Page 47668]]

    (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 final 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 significant regulatory action must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because 
this regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of 
Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
    We have also reviewed this 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 these final priorities only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits would justify their 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 would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities. 
The costs would include the time and effort in responding to the 
priorities for entities that choose to respond.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of the NPP. The benefits include supporting the work of the 
State VR agencies in the Client Assistance Program (84.263D); assisting 
and supporting individuals with disabilities pursuing self-employment, 
business ownership, and telecommuting (84.263E); promoting field-
initiated projects related to VR (84.263F); and tailoring the 
activities conducted under the priorities to reflect the greatest needs 
in the field.
    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 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 program 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. 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 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.

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. 2020-16958 Filed 8-4-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P