[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34554-34559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2020-OSERS-0015]


Proposed Requirements--The Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) Paperwork Reduction Waivers

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

ACTION: Proposed requirements and definition.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes requirements 
and a definition for waivers under section 609 of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Department may select as many as 
15 States to receive waivers of statutory requirements of, or 
regulatory requirements relating to, IDEA Part B, for a period of time 
not to exceed 4 years, to reduce excessive paperwork and 
noninstructional time burdens that do not assist in improving 
educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The 
purpose of these waivers is to increase the time and resources 
available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving 
educational and functional results for children with disabilities. 
Statutory requirements of, or regulatory

[[Page 34555]]

requirements relating to, applicable civil rights requirements or 
procedural safeguards under section 615 of IDEA may not be waived. The 
Department may use these proposed requirements and definition in fiscal 
year (FY) 2020 and later years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 19, 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 ``Help.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed requirements, 
address them to David Egnor, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW, Room 5163, 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: David Egnor, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334. 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 requirements and definition. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final requirements and 
definition, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of the 
proposed requirements or definition that each comment addresses.
    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 these proposed requirements and definition. 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.

Directed Questions

    1. We invite public comment on whether there are other specific 
issues the Department should consider when evaluating waiver proposals 
and whether we should require States, in their proposals, to provide 
further explanations of the legal and research-based supports for their 
proposals.
    2. The Department's regulations implementing Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and covering recipients that 
serve school-aged children with disabilities, as set out in 34 CFR 
104.31 through 104.36, contain civil rights protections that often 
overlap with, or can be met through the implementation of, the 
protections in IDEA Part B. For example, implementation of an 
individualized education program (IEP) developed in accordance with 
IDEA Part B is one means of meeting the standard for an appropriate 
education under the Section 504 implementing regulations. See 34 CFR 
104.33(b)(2). Likewise, the Section 504 implementing regulations 
require evaluations and reevaluations that meet certain criteria. 34 
CFR 104.35(a), (b), and (d).
    (a) Given the limitation that the Secretary may not waive any 
statutory or regulatory requirements of, or relating to, applicable 
civil rights requirements, the Department is seeking public comment on 
the best ways to address the close relationship between IDEA and the 
Section 504 protections that apply to school-aged children with 
disabilities.
    (b) Because of the overlap between IDEA and Section 504, should 
States, in their waiver proposals, be required to include a specific 
explanation of why the waiver sought would not conflict with 
requirements of, or relating to, Section 504 and its implementing 
regulations?
    3. We are particularly interested in comments regarding paragraphs 
(a)(6) and (a)(7) of the proposed requirements. These requirements 
originally appeared in the 2007 final requirement. (We discuss the 2007 
final requirements in greater detail in the Background section of this 
notice.) However, we are interested in public comment on whether these 
paragraphs are sufficiently clear that parents have the right to 
understand and consent to changes that affect their children's 
education and do not imply that waivers of FAPE are permitted under 
this program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed requirements and definition by accessing 
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 
5163, 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. Please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for the proposed requirements and definition. 
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 provide an 
opportunity for States to reduce excessive paperwork and 
noninstructional time burdens on special education teachers, related 
services providers, and State and local administrators, thus increasing 
time and resources available for instruction and other activities that 
would improve educational and functional results for children with 
disabilities.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1408.

Proposed Requirements

Background

    The Secretary believes that all students should be given the 
opportunity to succeed and that their success should be the primary 
focus of everyone in the educational system. When teachers, related 
services providers, and administrators who serve children with 
disabilities spend time completing unnecessary paperwork, their ability 
to prioritize and focus on improving outcomes for children with 
disabilities is hampered.
    In the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, Congress recognized that some 
Federal IDEA Part B requirements could create excessive paperwork and 
noninstructional time burdens on

[[Page 34556]]

special education teachers, related services providers, and State and 
local administrators, thus diverting time and resources away from 
instruction and other activities that would improve educational and 
functional results for children with disabilities.
    As such, under section 609 of IDEA, Congress gave the Department 
limited authority to grant waivers of certain requirements of IDEA Part 
B. Waivers may be granted to not more than 15 States and for a period 
not to exceed 4 years. Further, the Secretary may not waive any 
statutory or regulatory provisions relating to applicable civil rights 
requirements or allow a State or local educational agency to waive 
procedural safeguards under section 615 of IDEA, and waivers may not 
affect the right of a child with a disability to receive a free 
appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA Part B. In short, 
States' waiver proposals must preserve the fundamental rights of 
children with disabilities under IDEA.\1\ In addition, States have 
always had the authority, within the constraints of State law, to 
change or waive State requirements that exceed IDEA statutory and 
regulatory requirements in order to reduce administrative burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For any State that receives a waiver of Federal IDEA Part B 
requirements, the Secretary will terminate the waiver if the 
Secretary determines that the State failed to appropriately 
implement its waiver, or the Secretary determines the State needs 
assistance in implementing IDEA requirements and the waiver has 
contributed to or caused such need for assistance. The Secretary 
will also terminate the waiver if the Secretary determines the State 
needs intervention in implementing IDEA requirements, or needs 
substantial intervention in implementing IDEA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this document, we are proposing requirements and a definition 
for States to apply for paperwork waivers under section 609 of IDEA and 
thereby increase the time and resources available for instruction and 
other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results 
for children with disabilities.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are proposing 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for the IDEA Paperwork 
Reduction Planning and Implementation program, through which the 
Department intends to make grant funds available to plan for and 
implement reductions of excessive paperwork and noninstructional time 
burdens under IDEA section 609.
    IDEA is silent with respect to the selection criteria the 
Department may use to evaluate State proposals. On October 12, 2007, 
through a notice published in the Federal Register, the Department 
solicited State proposals under what was then called the IDEA Paperwork 
Waiver Demonstration Program (72 FR 58066). At that time, the 
Department relied on a notice of final additional requirements and 
selection criteria published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2007 
(72 FR 36970), which, in part, governed how States could apply for a 
waiver under IDEA section 609. However, that notice specified that the 
additional requirements and selection criteria were only eligible to be 
used once, which the Department did in 2007.
    We are, therefore, again issuing a notice of proposed requirements 
and definition for waiver proposals. The Department is proposing to use 
many of the same requirements for the waivers as it did in 2007 because 
we believe they still represent a sensible and practical approach to 
implementating the statutory requirements in section 609 of IDEA. 
Specifically, paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of these proposed 
requirements come from the 2007 notice. We invite public comment on the 
extent to which those requirements remain appropriate and whether the 
Department should include fewer, additional, or different requirements.
    Further, section 609(a)(3) of IDEA establishes requirements for a 
State's waiver proposal. Paragraphs (a)(8) and (9) of the proposed 
requirements reflect those requirements. Consistent with IDEA sections 
602(22), 602(31), and 610, ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each of the 
outlying areas (United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and the freely 
associated States (the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated 
States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau).
    Finally, the Department is primarily interested in granting waiver 
proposals designed to produce the greatest benefits as measured by the 
number of burden hours reduced, the number of instructional hours 
gained, and the number of personnel and students with disabilities 
positively affected by the waivers. As a result, paragraphs (a)(10), 
(a)(11), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the proposed requirements require 
States, in their waiver proposals, to include a discussion of (1) the 
interaction between the Federal IDEA Part B requirements they propose 
to waive and any related State requirements, (2) activities the State 
proposes to undertake to implement the proposed waiver, and (3) how the 
State will evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed waiver.
    The Department intends to accept waiver proposals from States for 
12 months following publication of an appropriate notice. The 
Department will review each proposal to determine whether the waivers 
are legally permissible and likely to generate the meaningful benefits 
contemplated in IDEA for personnel and the students with disabilities 
they serve.
    Proposed Requirements: We propose the following requirements for a 
proposal to waive certain requirements of, or relating to, IDEA Part B 
under section 609. We may apply one or more of these requirements in 
any year in which this program is in effect.
    (a) An applicant must include in its proposal the following:
    (1) A description of how the State \2\ met the public participation 
requirements of section 612(a)(19) of IDEA, including how the State--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Consistent with IDEA sections 602(22), 602(31), and 610, 
``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each of the outlying areas (United 
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands), and the freely associated States (the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children 
with disabilities, special education and regular education teachers, 
related services providers, and school and district administrators, in 
selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver and any specific 
proposals for changing those requirements to reduce excessive 
paperwork; and
    (ii) Provided an opportunity for public comment, including from 
individuals with disabilities and parents of children with 
disabilities, in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver.
    (iii) Held public hearings, and provided adequate notice of the 
hearings, to solicit input on the selection of requirements proposed 
for the waiver.
    (2) A summary of public comments received in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(1) of these requirements and how the public comments were 
addressed in the proposal.
    (3) A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure 
that, if the waiver is granted, it will not result in a denial of FAPE 
to any child with a disability, infringe on any applicable civil rights 
requirements, or result in a waiver of any procedural safeguards under 
section 615 of IDEA. This description also must include an assurance 
that the State will collect and report to the Department, as part of 
the State's annual performance report to the Secretary in accordance 
with section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of IDEA, all State

[[Page 34557]]

complaints and due process hearings resulting from the waivers and 
related to the denial of FAPE to any child with a disability or a 
waiver of any procedural safeguards under section 615 of IDEA and how 
the State responded to this information, including the outcome of that 
response such as providing technical assistance to the local 
educational agency (LEA) to improve implementation, or suspending or 
terminating the authority of an LEA to waive paperwork requirements due 
to unresolved compliance problems.
    (4) A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure 
that diverse stakeholders (including parents, teachers, administrators, 
related services providers, and other stakeholders, as appropriate) 
understand the proposed elements of the State's submission for the IDEA 
Paperwork Reduction Waivers.
    (5) Assurances that every parent of a child with a disability in 
participating LEAs will be given, in easily understandable language, 
written notice (in the native language of the parent, unless it is 
clearly not feasible to do so) of all statutory, regulatory, or State 
requirements that will be waived and the procedures that the State will 
employ under paragraph (a)(3) of these requirements.
    (6) Assurances that the State will require any participating LEA to 
obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents for a waiver of 
any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE.
    (7) Assurances that the State will require any participating LEA to 
inform parents in writing (in the native language of the parents, 
unless it is clearly not feasible to do so) of--
    (i) Any differences between the paperwork requirements under the 
waiver program approved for the State and the existing paperwork 
requirements of IDEA related to the provision of FAPE;
    (ii) The parent's right to revoke consent to waive any paperwork 
requirements related to the provision of FAPE at any time; and
    (iii) The LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements 
related to the provision of FAPE if the parent does not provide 
voluntary written informed consent or revokes consent.
    (8) A list of any statutory requirements of, or regulatory 
requirements relating to, IDEA Part B that the State desires the 
Secretary to waive, in whole or in part. For each requirement, the 
State should discuss how waiving the requirement will--
    (i) Reduce excessive paperwork and noninstructional time burdens on 
special education teachers, related services providers, and State and 
local administrators;
    (ii) Not affect the right of a child with a disability to receive 
FAPE under IDEA Part B, infringe on any applicable civil rights 
requirements, or result in the waiver of any procedural safeguards 
under section 615 of IDEA.
    (9) A list of any State requirements that the State proposes to 
waive or change, in whole or in part, to carry out a waiver granted to 
the State by the Secretary.
    (10) A description of the interplay between the requirements 
described in paragraph (a)(8) and any State requirements including, but 
not limited to, those described in paragraph (a)(9).
    (11) A description of the anticipated benefits of the proposed 
waiver, including, but not limited to--
    (i) The total reduction in burden hours on State and local 
personnel and the total number of instructional hours gained, 
disaggregated by applicable statutory or regulatory provision;
    (ii) The total number of administrators and direct service 
providers affected, including the number of individuals in each group, 
disaggregated by applicable statutory or regulatory provision; and
    (iii) The total number of likely beneficiaries, and the magnitude 
and scope of anticipated benefits and other activities intended to 
improve educational and functional results for children with 
disabilities.
    (12) A State that received a planning grant under the IDEA 
Paperwork Reduction Planning and Implementation Program (84.326F) must 
include in its waiver proposal the plan the State developed under that 
program.
    (b) An applicant must include in its proposal its proposed plan to 
disseminate information and materials regarding any revisions to 
requirements, policies, procedures, or practices made in conjunction 
with the waiver to relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited 
to, LEAs; private schools (including parochial schools) that provide 
services to children with disabilities; charter management 
organizations; the State Advisory Panel, as defined in section 
612(a)(21) of IDEA; and parent organizations, as that term is defined 
in sections 671(a)(2) and 672(a)(2) of IDEA.
    (c) An applicant must assure that it will make publicly available 
all information regarding changes to requirements, policies, 
procedures, or practices made in conjunction with the waiver.
    (d) An applicant must include in its proposal its proposed plan to 
provide training on revisions to requirements, policies, procedures, or 
practices made under the waiver to staff in LEAs, private schools 
(including parochial schools) that provide services to children with 
disabilities, and other appropriate service providers and 
administrators.
    (e) An applicant must include in its proposal its proposed plan to 
collect and analyze data on specific and measurable goals, objectives, 
and outcomes of the project related to the implementation of any waiver 
granted, including data on the effectiveness of the waiver in--
    (1) Reducing--
    (i) The paperwork burden on teachers, principals, administrators, 
and related services providers; and
    (ii) Noninstructional time spent by teachers in complying with IDEA 
Part B;
    (2) Enhancing longer-term educational planning;
    (3) Improving positive outcomes, including educational and 
functional results, for children with disabilities;
    (4) Promoting collaboration between IEP Team members; and
    (5) Ensuring satisfaction of family members.
    (f) An applicant must submit its proposal with a letter signed by 
an appropriate State official, or his or her designee, stating that--
    (1) The appropriate State official is authorized to make the 
proposal for a waiver under State law; and
    (2) The proposal meets all of the applicable requirements for a 
waiver.

Proposed Definition

    We propose the following definition for the proposed requirements. 
We may apply this definition in any year in which the requirements are 
in effect.
    ``Applicable civil rights requirements,'' includes, but is not 
limited to, the civil rights protections in the United States 
Constitution and the requirements in the following legislation and 
their respective implementing regulations:
    (1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
    (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    (3) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
    (4) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
    (5) Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

Final Requirements and Definition

    We will announce the final requirements and definition in a 
document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final 
requirements and definition after considering public comments on the 
proposed requirements and definition and other

[[Page 34558]]

information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing priorities, additional requirements, 
additional 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 resulting final requirements and 
definition, we intend to invite applications through a separate 
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 regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the proposed 
regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive 
Order 13771 do 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 requirements and definition based on a 
reasoned determination that the benefits would justify the costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, 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. 
These potential costs are those that would be incurred by a State 
making an application for a waiver to the Secretary following the 
requirements proposed by this regulatory action.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document. The potential benefits include a reduction in 
the administrative burden hours under IDEA on State and local personnel 
and a corresponding gain in instructional time and services for 
children with disabilities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    The proposed requirements contain information collection 
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-
0028; the proposed requirements do not affect the currently approved 
data collection.
Clarity of the Regulations
    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed 
requirements and definition easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Certification: The Secretary 
certifies that

[[Page 34559]]

this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA) 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.
    The proposed requirements and definition would not affect any small 
entities, as only States, as defined in the IDEA, are eligible to 
apply. No States qualify as small entities for purposes of the RFA.
    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 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 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. 2020-11416 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P