[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5432-5435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2021-OSERS-0160]


Proposed Priority--State Personnel Development Grants

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
(OSERS) proposes a funding priority 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 and their families by supporting a 
comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD) for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C Grants for 
Infants and Families program. The Department may use the proposed 
priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment 
period. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure 
that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include 
the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information

[[Page 5433]]

on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency 
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on 
the site under ``Help.''
    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. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect 
in developing the final priority, we urge you to comment only on the 
proposed priority.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priority by accessing Regulations.gov. You 
may also inspect the comments in person. Please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make arrangements to 
inspect the comments in person.
    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. 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 State 
educational agencies (SEAs) in reforming and improving their systems 
for personnel preparation and professional development in early 
intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results 
for children with disabilities.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

Proposed Priority

    This notification contains one proposed priority.
    Supporting an IDEA Part C Comprehensive System of Personnel 
Development (CSPD).
    Background: The purpose of this proposed priority is to support 
further advancement of IDEA Part C CSPDs. Use of this proposed priority 
would allow the Department to award funds competitively to SEAs to 
provide to their State lead agencies (LAs) to further develop the IDEA 
Part C statewide CSPD systems outlined in section 635(a)(8) of IDEA in 
accordance with 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. In order to be 
considered for a grant under this priority, if the SEA is not the State 
LA for IDEA Part C, an SEA shall establish a partnership, consistent 
with IDEA section 652(b)(1)(B), with the State LA, which is the State 
lead agency responsible for administering IDEA Part C, including the 
CSPD requirements.
    Note: To carry out the State plan under section 653 of IDEA, as 
described in its application, the SEA also may award contracts, 
subgrants, or both to other public and private entities, including, if 
appropriate, the State LA under Part C of IDEA.
    We intend for this proposed priority to supplement the SPDG 
statutory priority, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 
2017 (82 FR 10470),\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/13/2017-02895/applications-for-new-awards-state-personnel-development-grants-spdg-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: Projects designed to enable the State to meet 
the CSPD requirements of section 635(a)(8) and (9) of the IDEA. In 
order to be considered for a grant under this priority, if the SEA is 
not the State LA for IDEA Part C, an SEA shall establish a partnership, 
consistent with IDEA section 652(b)(1)(B), with the State LA 
responsible for administering IDEA Part C. Consistent with IDEA section 
635(a)(8), the purpose of this priority is to help improve the capacity 
of States' IDEA Part C personnel development, including the training of 
paraprofessionals and the training of primary referral sources with 
respect to the basic components of early intervention services 
available in the State. The CSPD must include: (1) Training personnel 
to implement innovative strategies and activities for the recruitment 
and retention of early education service providers; (2) Promoting the 
preparation of early intervention providers who are fully and 
appropriately qualified to provide early intervention services under 
this part; and (3) Training personnel to coordinate transition services 
for infants and toddlers with disabilities who are transitioning from 
an early intervention service program under Part C of the Act to a 
preschool program under section 619 of the Act, Head Start, Early Head 
Start, an elementary school program under Part B of the Act, or another 
appropriate program. The IDEA Part C CSPD may also include, consistent 
with 34 CFR 303.118(b): (1) Training personnel to work in rural and 
inner-city areas; (2) Training personnel in the emotional and social 
development of young children; and (3) Training personnel to support 
families in participating fully in the development and implementation 
of the child's Individualized Family Service Plan; and (4) Training 
personnel who provide services under this part using standards that are 
consistent with early learning personnel development standards funded 
under the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care 
established under the Head Start Act, if applicable. The SEA must 
include in its State plan how it will partner with the State LA, if the 
SEA is not the State LA for IDEA Part C, to implement these aspects of 
the CSPD. The description of the partnership should indicate the amount 
and percentage of SPDG funding that will support implementation of the 
CSPD over the project period and how funding will complement current 
efforts and investments (Federal IDEA Part C appropriations and State 
and local funds) to implement the CSPD. The description should also 
describe the extent to which funds will be used on activities to 
increase and train personnel

[[Page 5434]]

working with infants and toddlers and their families that have 
historically been underserved by Part C.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If the provision requiring State IDEA Part C programs to 
develop an equity plan is enacted in the FY2022 appropriations, then 
projects must align their CSPD activities with State IDEA Part C 
equity plans, which are plans to support equitable access to and 
participation in Part C services in the State, particularly for 
populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition 
using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as 
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in 
the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    Final Priority: We will announce the final priority in a document 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority 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 this proposed priority, we invite applications 
through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned 
determination that its benefits would justify the costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that 
maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    The potential costs associated with this priority would be minimal, 
while the potential benefits are significant. The Department believes 
that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on 
eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the 
costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action would be limited 
to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential 
benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred 
by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with 
the application will be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, 
we have determined that the costs of implementation will not be 
excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including small 
entities.
    We also have 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 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.
    In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this 
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background 
section of this document.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priority contains information collection requirements 
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the 
proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data 
collection.

[[Page 5435]]

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 the proposed priority 
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 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 
would not impose any additional 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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    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.

Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the authority to perform the 
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-01802 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P