[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56211-56216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15047]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0012]


State Personnel Development Grants

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

ACTION: Final priorities and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces final 
priorities and requirements under the State Personnel Development 
Grants (SPDG) program. The Department may use one or more of these 
priorities and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 
and later years. We take this action to focus attention on assisting 
States in reforming and improving their systems for personnel 
preparation and personnel development in order to improve results for 
children with disabilities.

DATES: These priorities and requirements are effective August 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0150. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SPDG 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.
    Assistance Listing Number: 84.323A.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities and requirements (NPP) 
for this program in the Federal Register on March 28, 2024 (89 FR 
21469). That document contained background information and the 
Department's reasons for proposing the priorities and requirements.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, three 
parties submitted comments addressing the priorities, requirements, and 
directed questions. We discuss comments related to the priorities and 
requirements under each priority 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 under the applicable statutory 
authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised 
concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities or 
requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities or requirements since publication of 
the NPP follows.
    Comment: In response to the Department's directed question 
regarding challenges to developing and supporting grow your own (GYO) 
programs, one commenter enumerated challenges at the State, district, 
and participant level. At the State level, the commenter identified the 
lack of sufficient funding to expand the program and fund personnel to 
oversee programmatic and fiscal requirements as a major challenge. At 
the district level, the commenter noted that finding candidates to 
participate in the programs and securing sufficient funding and 
resources, including time for oversight, were major challenges, along 
with the absence of coaching for GYO participants. In addition, the 
commenter stated that rural districts struggle with a small candidate 
pool.
    The commenter shared that GYO participants have challenges 
maintaining employment while completing their coursework, are not 
readily able to pay for tuition, struggle to successfully complete 
college-level coursework, and have difficulty passing entrance and 
subject area exams, and managing responsibilities in the home, work 
duties, and college coursework.

[[Page 56212]]

    Discussion: The Department appreciates learning about the potential 
challenges faced at each level of the education system and will provide 
support to SPDG projects to help ensure they foresee these challenges 
and provide supports for GYO districts, schools, and participants.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: In response to the Department's directed question 
regarding supports that would assist SEAs in developing and 
implementing career pathways for those interested in becoming fully 
certified special education teachers, one commenter shared that the 
following supports would be helpful: funding, additional partners to 
coordinate program management, exemplar pathway models that include 
programmatic recommendations, and recruitment and retention resources 
that support successful program completion. The commenter shared it 
would be helpful for SEAs to receive technical assistance (TA) and 
targeted coaching that supports building and implementing pathways for 
special education personnel.
    Discussion: An SEA may use their SPDG resources to provide the 
supports described by the commenter in the implementation of a GYO, 
teacher residency, or registered teacher apprenticeship program. As for 
support for the SEAs, the Department currently provides TA and targeted 
coaching via the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, 
Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR Center).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter responded to the Department's question about 
supports that would help SEAs develop and implement a system to address 
the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an 
emergency certification who work with children with disabilities. The 
commenter shared that longitudinal studies that track candidates from 
preparation through their fifth year of teaching and that assess 
outcomes such as teacher efficacy, teacher retention, and student 
outcomes would support SEAs in understanding the specific needs of 
teachers based on various certification pathways. These data would also 
allow SEAs and their partners to anticipate and create structures to 
support the professional learning needs of teachers pursuing various 
certification pathways.
    Discussion: We agree that modernized statewide longitudinal data 
systems (SLDS) can be a valuable tool in identifying and addressing the 
professional learning and certification needs of personnel, including 
by providing the ability to respond to policy needs, such as addressing 
the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an 
emergency certification and understanding the educator pipeline and its 
impact. We encourage SPDG grantees to take opportunities to modernize 
their SLDS. To date, 34 States have used SLDS funds to establish 
linkages between K-12, postsecondary, and workforce data. For more 
information about SLDS grant opportunities, please visit https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/grant_information.asp.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: In response to the Department's directed question about 
which stakeholders SEAs should collaborate with to develop and 
implement a system to address the professional learning and 
certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who 
work with children with disabilities, one commenter stated SEAs should 
collaborate with educator preparation programs to enhance traditional 
teacher preparation programs and partner in supporting GYO, teacher 
residency, and registered teacher apprenticeship programs. The 
commenter also stated that SEAs should partner with LEAs and 
professional organizations for education leaders, including special 
education directors, elementary and secondary school principals, and 
other school administrators, to identify the needs of teachers and to 
provide targeted resources and supports.
    In addition, the commenter stated that SEAs should engage with 
national TA centers to stay informed of evidence-based practices for 
effective pre-service preparation and in-service supports, as well as 
to partner with their parent and training information center to train 
teachers on the parent perspective and how to effectively engage and 
partner with families.
    Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for these 
thoughtful recommendations. Under section 653(b) of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the State personnel development 
plan must describe how the applicant will work in partnership with 
agencies and programs addressing the education of children and youth 
with disabilities to strengthen the project's efforts. The partners 
suggested by the commenter are all required or permitted partners under 
section 652(b) of the IDEA, and we agree that they may serve as 
important collaborators. Additionally, one of the Final Common 
Requirements is that a project must align with and integrate other 
State initiatives and programs, as well as district and local 
improvement plans, to leverage existing professional development and 
data systems.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended the Department incentivize SEAs 
to develop programs that include educational audiologists and speech-
language pathologists.
    Discussion: Educational audiologists and speech-language 
pathologists are included in the definition of ``personnel'' used by 
the SPDG program (section 651(b) of the IDEA). Accordingly, applicants 
may propose to include educational audiologists and speech-language 
pathologists in SPDG professional development activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department use the SPDG 
program to incentivize appropriate workloads for personnel, suggesting 
that using SPDG funds to analyze and right-size educator workload will 
increase the likelihood that students receive the most appropriate 
supports to meet their educational and functional goals.
    Discussion: SPDG funds are used to address specific State-
identified needs. The notice inviting applications for the FY 2024 SPDG 
competition, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 
provides examples of activities that may be funded with an SPDG grant, 
including the use of funds to support reduced class schedules and 
caseloads.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter, responding to Proposed Priority 1, 
recommended SEAs and institutions of higher education collaborate to 
provide grant programs and scholarships for high school students to 
begin working toward paraprofessional and teacher certification.
    Discussion: The SPDG may be used to support collaborative 
recruitment efforts, including providing grant programs and 
scholarships for high school students to begin working toward 
paraprofessional and teacher certification. Per the Final Common 
Requirements, an applicant must describe the proposed in-State and 
national partners that the project will work with to achieve the goals 
and objectives of the grant and how the impact of these partnerships 
will be measured.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter shared that virtual reality simulations may 
enable pathway participants and other personnel to learn more about 
teaching children with disabilities and how to navigate complex 
situations.

[[Page 56213]]

    Discussion: GYO, apprenticeships, and residency pathways and 
professional development programs may benefit from the use of virtual 
reality teaching simulations that allow personnel to practice important 
skills prior to using them with children. Nothing in Priority 1 would 
preclude an applicant from proposing to use this technology.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters supported Proposed Priority 1 as a means to 
develop new and dynamic workforce pathways for the special education 
workforce system.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates support for this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: In response to Proposed Priority 2, one commenter 
recommended that SPDG projects use empathy interviews to identify 
barriers faced by personnel on their path to full certification.
    Discussion: We agree that understanding barriers and facilitators 
to reaching full certification is an important aspect of improving 
personnel preparation and retention systems. SPDG projects may choose 
to use empathy interviews to gather formative data to help improve 
their services.
    Changes: None.

Final Priorities

    Priority 1: Providing Career Pathways for Those Interested in 
Becoming Fully Certified Special Education Teachers, Including 
Paraprofessionals, Through Residency, GYO, and Registered 
Apprenticeships Programs.
    Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special 
education teachers by establishing a new, or enhancing an existing, 
teacher residency, GYO, or registered teacher apprenticeship program 
that minimizes or eliminates the cost of certification for special 
education teacher candidates and provides opportunities for candidates 
to be paid, including being provided with a stipend (which, for 
programs that include paid experience for the duration of the 
certification program, can be met through paragraph (i), below), to 
cover the time spent gaining classroom experience during their 
certification program.
    A project implementing a new or enhanced teacher residency, GYO, or 
registered teacher apprenticeship program must--
    (a) Use data-driven strategies and evidence-based approaches to 
increase recruitment, successful completion, and retention of the 
special education teachers supported by the project;
    (b) Provide standards for participants to enter into and complete 
the program;
    (c) Be aligned to evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
practices for effective educator preparation;
    (d) Have little to no financial burden for program participants, or 
provide for loan forgiveness, grants, or scholarship programs;
    (e) Provide opportunities for candidates to be paid, including 
being provided with a stipend, to cover time spent in clinical 
experience during their certification program;
    (f) Develop a plan to monitor program quality;
    (g) Require completion of a bachelor's degree either before 
entering or as a result of the teacher residency, GYO, or teacher 
apprenticeship program;
    (h) Result in the satisfaction of all requirements for full State 
teacher licensure or certification, excluding emergency, temporary, 
provisional, or other sub-standard licensure or certification;
    (i) Provide increasing levels of responsibility for the resident/
GYO participant/apprentice during at least one year of paid on-the-job 
learning/clinical experience, during which a mentor teacher is the 
teacher of record; and
    (j) Develop a plan to ensure the program has funding after the end 
of the project period.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.
    Priority 2: Supporting Emergency Certified Special Education 
Teachers to Become Fully Certified.
    Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special 
education teachers by implementing plans that address the emergency 
certification needs of personnel who work with children with 
disabilities. The plans must--
    (a) Identify the barriers and challenges to full certification that 
are experienced by special education personnel on emergency 
certifications;
    (b) Include evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) strategies 
to address those barriers and challenges and assist special education 
personnel on emergency certifications to obtain full certification, 
consistent with State-approved or State-recognized requirements, within 
three years;
    (c) Include training and coaching on, at a minimum--
    (1) The skills needed to collaboratively develop, implement, and 
monitor standards-based IEPs;
    (2) High-leverage and evidence-based instructional and classroom 
management practices; and
    (3) The provision of wrap-around services (e.g., social, emotional, 
and mental health supports), special education services, and other 
supports for children with disabilities; and
    (d) Provide participating special education personnel on emergency 
certifications with opportunities to apply the evidence-based skills 
and practices described in paragraph (c) in the classroom.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.
    Priority 3: Person-Centered IEPs that Support Instructional 
Progress.
    Projects designed to provide pre-service and in-service training to 
school and district personnel, including IEP team members (e.g., 
special education and general education teachers, related service 
personnel who work with children with disabilities) and administrators, 
to improve their skills in developing and implementing person-centered 
IEPs that support instructional progress and improve functional 
outcomes \1\ for children with disabilities. Projects must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An IEP that supports instructional progress is an IEP that 
focuses on the academic, vocational, developmental, and social needs 
of the child and allows the child to benefit from instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Provide training and coaching to administrators and IEP team 
members to increase their ability to develop, implement, and monitor 
person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress so that they 
can--
    (1) Use appropriate data to determine the child's instructional and 
functional strengths and needs;
    (2) Increase the child's learning time and opportunities with 
general education peers, as appropriate, based on research;
    (3) Choose and use evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
practices for core instruction; and
    (4) Supplement core instruction with special education services.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application

[[Page 56214]]

and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.
    Priority 4: Principals as Instructional Leaders Who Support 
Collaborative Service Provision.
    Projects designed to provide professional development to improve 
the instructional leadership provided by principals and other school 
leaders, district leaders, and teacher leaders to promote educational 
equity for children with disabilities. Projects must provide training 
and coaching to assist administrators to--
    (a) Create and support equitable school schedules and other 
operations that enable collaborative services from general and special 
education staff;
    (b) Support schoolwide inclusionary practices within a multi-tiered 
systems of support (MTSS) framework;
    (c) Support evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional 
development for their staff related to--
    (1) Effective content instruction;
    (2) Data for decision-making and continuous progress monitoring;
    (3) IEP development and implementation; and
    (4) Wrap-around services;
    (d) Actively engage families and school communities to identify and 
address concerns regarding, and barriers to, accessibility, equity, and 
inclusiveness, using frameworks such as universal design; and
    (e) Provide administrators structured learning opportunities, such 
as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking 
to build a professional community, and applied learning opportunities, 
such as problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.
    Priority 5: Improving Engagement between Schools and Families.
    Projects designed to develop the capacity of administrators and 
educators to develop systems and use strategies that build trust and 
engagement with families, while further strengthening the role families 
play in their child's development and learning. Projects must--
    (a) Provide training and coaching to assist administrators to--
    (1) Develop and implement policies and programs that recognize 
families' funds of knowledge, connect family engagement to student 
learning, and create welcoming, inviting cultures; and
    (2) Create systems that support staff and families in meaningful 
engagement (i.e., Leading by Convening and the Dual-Capacity Framework. 
For more information visit www.dualcapcity.org and www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening);
    (b) Provide training and coaching to assist educators and early 
intervention providers to--
    (1) Build their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and 
behaviors about effective strategies to engage families in their 
child's learning;
    (2) Work with families to make collaborative, data-based decisions 
in the development and implementation of the child's IEP; and
    (3) Provide information and resources to families that enable them 
to support their children's learning and behavior at home; and
    (c) Provide training and coaching to families so they can--
    (1) Meaningfully participate in the development and implementation 
of their child's IEP;
    (2) Participate in data-based decision making related to their 
child's education; and
    (3) Further their child's learning at home.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

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 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 one or more of these priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following final 
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Final Common Requirements

    In addition to the requirements contained in these priorities, to 
be considered for funding, applicants must meet the following 
application and administrative requirements:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs, 
as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing 
professional development and data systems;
    (2) Develop and implement plans to sustain the grant program after 
the grant funding has ended; and
    (3) Integrate family engagement into all project efforts by 
supporting capacity building for personnel and families.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Develop the knowledge and ability of personnel to be culturally 
responsive and engage children and families with a strengths-based 
approach;
    (ii) Engage students, families, and community members to assess the 
appropriateness and impact of the intervention, program, or strategies; 
and
    (iii) Review program procedures and resources to ensure a diversity 
of perspectives are brought into the project; and
    (2) Achieve the project's goals and objectives. To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Either a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or theory of 
action (to be

[[Page 56215]]

provided in appendix A), which demonstrates how the proposed project 
will achieve intended measurable outcomes;
    (ii) A description of proposed in-State and national partners that 
the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the 
grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured; and
    (iii) A description of how the project will be based on current 
research and make use of evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (A) The current research base for the chosen interventions;
    (B) The evidence-based model or practices to be used in the 
project's professional development activities; and
    (C) How implementation science will be used to support full and 
sustained use of evidence-based practices and result in sustained 
systems of implementation support.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party \2\ 
evaluator. The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model or 
theory of action required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these 
requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model or theory of action and evaluation plan, including 
subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance 
report to the Department; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how the proposed management plan 
will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on 
time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (1) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable;
    (2) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (3) How key project personnel and any consultants and 
subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these 
allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's 
intended outcomes; and
    (4) How the proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Provide an assurance that any project website will include 
relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or 
industry-recognized standard for accessibility;
    (3) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) An annual one and one-half day SPDG National Meeting in the 
Washington, DC area during each year of the project period; and
    (ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the 
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused 
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget 
period; and
    (4) Budget $6,000 annually for support of the SPDG program network 
and website currently administered by the University of Oregon 
(www.signetwork.org).

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

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, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments 
or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

[[Page 56216]]

    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    We have also reviewed this final 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 and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits 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.
    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.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that the costs associated with the final 
priorities and requirements will 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 will be limited to paperwork 
burden related to preparing an application. The benefits of 
implementing the program will 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 
burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final priorities, including requirements, contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028; the final priorities, including requirements, do not 
affect the currently approved data collection.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary 
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and 
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total 
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as 
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not 
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined 
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing 
a population below 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 final priorities and requirements will not impose any 
additional burden on small entities.
    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 the Department's 
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 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, 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 Department documents 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 Department documents 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.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-15047 Filed 7-5-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P