4000-01-U
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:
SUMMARY:

Final priorities and requirements.
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

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Coffey, U.S.

Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, room
4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Email:

Telephone:

(202) 987-0150.

jennifer.coffey@ed.gov.

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:
Program Authority:

84.323A.

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.
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.
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 substandard 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.
(a)

The plans must--

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 inservice 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 outcomes1 for children with
disabilities.

Projects must--

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 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.
(a)

Projects must--

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 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-party2 evaluator.

The evaluation

plan must-(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;

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.

(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.
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.
SPDG program is voluntary.

Participation in the

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: 7/5/2024 11:15 am; Publication Date: 7/9/2024]