Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35415 

SUMMARY: The Department of State 

(‘‘Department’’) is removing from the 

Code of Federal Regulations 

amendments that were published in an 

interim final rule (‘‘IFR’’) on June 5, 

2019, requiring principal entrants 

submitting an electronic diversity visa 

entry form to provide certain 

information, including the entrant’s 

unique serial or issuance number 

associated with the principal entrant’s 

valid, unexpired passport or claim an 

exemption to the passport requirement. 

This document responds to a ruling of 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, which vacated the rule. 

DATES: The final rule is effective June 

10, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Lage, Acting Senior Regulatory 

Coordinator, Office of Visa Services, 

Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department 

of State, 600 19th St. NW, Washington, 

DC 20006, (202) 485–7586. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 5, 

2019, the Department issued an IFR 

titled ‘‘Visas: Diversity Immigrants’’ in 

the Federal Register (84 FR 25989). The 

IFR amended Department regulations at 

22 CFR 42.33(b)(1) to require a Diversity 

Visa (‘‘DV’’) program entrant to provide 

on the electronic DV entry form the 

unique serial or issuance number 

associated with that entrant’s valid, 

unexpired passport, as well as the 

passport’s country or authority of 

issuance, and its expiration date, unless 

the entrant claimed a valid passport 

exemption pursuant to 22 CFR 42.2(d), 

(e), or (g)(2). The IFR also clarified and 

amended its regulation at 22 CFR 

42.33(b)(1) to notify entrants that failure 

to accurately include any information 

required by the regulation would result 

in mandatory disqualification for that 

selection year. 

On February 4, 2022, the District 

Court vacated the IFR. E.B. v. U.S. 

Department of State, No. 19–2856 

(D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2022). To comply with 

the District Court’s ruling, the 

Department is removing the regulatory 

changes promulgated by the IFR. This 

rule also makes a technical correction to 

a punctuation mark in 22 CFR 

42.33(b)(1)(vii). 

Regulatory Analyses 

The regulatory analyses contained in 

the IFR are adopted herein by reference, 

as supplemented by the following. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This rule is not subject to the 

requirement under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) to provide noticeand-comment, because it falls under the 

good cause exception, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). The good cause exception is 

satisfied when notice and comment is 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Id. This rule is 

a necessary administrative step to 

implement the District Court’s order 

vacating the IFR. Additionally, because 

this rule implements a court order 

already in effect, the Department has 

good cause to publish the rule effective 

immediately and without a notice and 

comment period under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). 

Congressional Review Act 

This is not a major rule as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804. 

Executive Orders 12866 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this is a significant, though not 

economically significant, regulatory 

action under Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 42 

Immigration, Passports and visas. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, the Department amends 

22 CFR part 42 as follows: 

PART 42—VISAS: DOCUMENTATION 

OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE 

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY 

ACT, AS AMENDED 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 42 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104 and 1182; Pub. L. 

105–277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 108–449, 

118 Stat. 3469; The Convention on Protection 

of Children and Co-operation in Respect of 

Intercountry Adoption (done at the Hague, 

May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105–51 (1998), 

1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); 

42 U.S.C. 14901–14954 (Pub. L. 106–279, 114 

Stat. 825); 8 U.S.C. 1101 (Pub. L. 111–287, 

124 Stat. 3058); 8 U.S.C. 1154 (Pub. L. 109– 

162, 119 Stat. 2960); 8 U.S.C. 1201 (Pub. L. 

114–70, 129 Stat. 561). 

■ 2. Amend § 42.33 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(vii); and 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) 

and (ix). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 42.33 Diversity immigrants. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) The location of the consular 

office nearest to the petitioner’s current 

residence or, if in the United States, 

nearest to the petitioner’s last foreign 

residence prior to entry into the United 

States. 

* * * * * 

Rena Bitter, 

Assistant Secretary, Consular Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12514 Filed 6–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OSERS–0018] 

Final priority—State Personnel 

Development Grants 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces a priority 

under the State Personnel Development 

Grants (SPDG), Assistance Listing 

Number 84.323A. The Department may 

use the priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. 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. 

DATES: Effective July 11, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5134, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5134. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6673. Email: 

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. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451– 

1455. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on February 1, 2022 

(87 FR 5432). That document contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the priority. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

There are some differences between 

the NPP and this notice of final priority 

(NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section of this 

document. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 17 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priority. 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 priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the NPP follows. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether the Department determined 

where funds should be used in a State. 

Other commenters recommended 

making these funds available for 

recruitment of highly qualified early 

intervention staff. 

Discussion: While the Department 

agrees that the recruitment of highly 

qualified early intervention staff is an 

appropriate use of funds, we want to 

provide flexibility to SEAs (working in 

partnership with State lead agencies 

(LAs)) (‘‘applicants’’ or ‘‘SEA 

applicant’’) to determine how funds are 

used within the constraints of a notice 

inviting applications (NIA). This 

flexibility allows these applicants to 

choose the programming and sites they 

would like to support via professional 

development and the CSPD. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department stipulate the 

amount and percentage of SPDG 

funding to be used for activities or 

personnel development for those 

working with infants, toddlers, and their 

families. 

Discussion: The Department does not 

want to stipulate the amount of funding, 

because the Department wants to 

provide flexibility to SEA applicants 

(working in partnership with State LAs) 

to determine the amount of funding 

based on the proposed activities. 

Typically, an NIA under the SPDG 

program provides a number of areas a 

State can choose from to focus their 

efforts so that they best meet the needs 

of their State. 

However, as noted by the commenter, 

to achieve this priority, it will be 

essential for the State to at least specify 

the percentage of funding. As a result, 

we are clarifying in the priority 

language that a State must 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. 

Additionally, we are clarifying a State 

must describe the extent to which funds 

will be used on activities to increase 

and train personnel working with 

infants and toddlers and their families 

that have historically been underserved 

by Part C. 

Changes: We have replaced ‘‘should’’ 

with ‘‘must,’’ in the first paragraph of 

the priority, ‘‘Supporting an IDEA Part 

C Comprehensive System of Personnel 

Development’’ in the NIA to make clear 

that an applicant must provide 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. We also 

replaced ‘‘should’’ with ‘‘must,’’ in the 

description of the priority, ‘‘Supporting 

an IDEA Part C Comprehensive System 

of Personnel Development’’ prior to the 

grant’s ‘‘Program Requirements’’ section 

to make clear that an applicant must 

also describe the extent to which funds 

will be used on activities to increase 

and train personnel working with 

infants and toddlers and their families 

that have historically been underserved 

by Part C. 

Comment: One commenter described 

how their State’s CSPD has brought 

together a diverse group of stakeholders 

and has provided a focus for important 

workforce issues critical to the 

education of their youngest learners. 

Discussion: We agree that the CSPD 

can support collaborative, ongoing 

efforts to develop a knowledgeable and 

skilled early childhood workforce. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

described how necessary this priority is 

because there are insufficient resources 

and funding to support the use of 

evidence-based early intervention 

services that improve outcomes for 

children with disabilities. And three 

commenters supported the use of the 

SPDG in supporting effective practices 

in early childhood services. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that supporting evidence-based 

practices for the youngest children can 

result in substantial impact. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that it could be more time efficient to 

have a national technical assistance 

(TA) provider work with staff within 

States. 

Discussion: While the Department 

agrees and notes that it does fund a 

national TA center that supports the 

development of CSPDs in States—the 

Early Childhood Personnel Center 

(https://ecpcta.org/)—additional 

resources are needed under the SPDG 

program to build sustainable systems 

within a State. Furthermore, the 

purpose of this priority is to ensure that 

SEAs work collaboratively with LAs by 

developing a partnership, and this 

funding would support such a 

partnership. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Eleven commenters stated 

that this priority will assist with the 

extreme shortage of early childhood 

personnel. 

Discussion: We agree that there are 

early childhood personnel shortages and 

this grant program can be used to 

support statewide strategies to recruit 

and retain personnel. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter shared 

that early intervention personnel need 

more support in implementing 

recommended early childhood 

practices. 

Discussion: We agree that early 

intervention personnel need support in 

implementing recommended early 

childhood practices. This support can 

be a focus of the SPDG activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters shared 

that the CSPD is integral to an effective 

system for Part C of the IDEA and that 

a comprehensive system facilitates 

communication, collaboration, and 

implementation of coordinated 

components of personnel standards; 

recruitment and retention; pre-service 

and in-service training; and 

sustainability of a qualified workforce, 

which includes a statewide workforce 

tracking system. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that a CSPD is integral to 

an effective Part C system and that a 

comprehensive system includes these 

elements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters asked 

that the Department require each of the 

elements of the CSPD. 

Discussion: This priority lists the 

components from the CSPD that are 

required by section 635(a)(8) of the 

IDEA (34 CFR 303.118(a)). The 

Department is cognizant that not all Part 

C programs under IDEA have the 

infrastructure in place to carry out all 

aspects of the CSPD and that SPDG 

funds are administered by SEAs under 

section 652 of the IDEA, which is why 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35417 

1 34 CFR 303.209 identifies the transition 

requirements for all toddlers with disabilities 

receiving services under Part C of the IDEA before 

those toddlers turn three-years old. Transition 

services are those services that assist toddlers with 

disabilities and their families to experience a 

smooth and effective transition from the early 

intervention program under Part C to the child’s 

next program or other appropriate services, 

including services that may be identified for a child 

who is no longer eligible to receive Part C or Part 

B services. 

the priority requires SEAs (that are not 

LAs) to apply for SPDG funds in 

partnership with LAs to support further 

development of these components. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters shared 

the opinion that this funding would be 

the most helpful if used to provide 

updated mental health training in local 

educational agencies (LEAs) and 

schools. 

Discussion: Since this priority focuses 

on the Part C CSPD, it cannot support 

training for LEAs and schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that practices supported in a 

CSPD be evidence-based, a good fit for 

the context, and evaluated properly 

with data. 

Discussion: We agree that practices 

supported in a CSPD must be evidencebased, a good fit for the context, and 

evaluated properly with data. The SPDG 

supports the use of evidence-based 

practices. 

We also agree that the context in 

which the evidence-based practices are 

implemented is a critical consideration 

and that data must be used to evaluate 

the fidelity and effects of the practice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters shared 

that the needs of children vary 

dramatically across rural and inner-city 

communities, and one commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require States to provide what they 

understand their specific, communitybased needs are and how the grant 

funding will directly support students 

who are most vulnerable. 

Discussion: We agree that the context 

where children with disabilities are 

being served should be considered 

when planning services. Sections 651 

through 655 of the IDEA, as amended by 

the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 

requires projects to review the needs in 

the State, including areas in need of 

improvement related to the preparation, 

ongoing training, and professional 

development of personnel who serve 

infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and 

children with disabilities within the 

State, including different geographical 

needs within the State. Each applicant 

is required to include a plan that aligns 

with sections of the IDEA as specified 

earlier in this paragraph. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended setting clear standards for 

the qualifications of service providers. 

Discussion: The Department agrees as 

this is consistent with the law. Under 

section 632(4)(F) of the IDEA, the CSPD 

requires the State to establish and 

maintain a system that results in 

qualified personnel. Under 34 CFR 

303.31, qualified personnel is defined as 

qualifications that are consistent with 

State-approved or recognized 

certification, licensing, registration, or 

other comparable requirements that 

apply to the areas in which personnel 

are conducting evaluations or 

assessments or providing early 

intervention services. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

support apprenticeship programs for 

improved retention of disability service 

providers and educators. According to 

this commenter, these apprenticeships 

offer the opportunity for dedicated, 

passionate individuals to pursue careers 

in paraprofessional services without the 

financial burden of attending a 

traditional, full-time university. 

Additionally, this commenter noted that 

these programs address the 

paraprofessional staff shortages 

experienced by schools across the 

Nation. 

Discussion: The Department considers 

an apprenticeship program that 

addresses the needs that the State has 

identified under its CSPD an allowable 

use of funds. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended the Department clearly 

define transition services and provide 

clearer standards as to what constitutes 

effective services for infants and 

toddlers with disabilities who are 

moving from an early intervention 

program to the general education 

curriculum. 

Discussion: Defining transition 

services is unnecessary because Part C 

of the IDEA identifies the transition 

service requirements in IDEA section 

637(a)(9) and 34 CFR 303.209 1 and 

including personnel training activities 

focused on transition services is an 

option for a SPDG developing their 

CSPD. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

more funding needs to be provided to 

support early childhood programming. 

The commenter shared that many States 

must use an in-service model to train 

providers, but that this model can put 

substantial strain on the State’s system 

if the costs of training are not offset by 

other funding sources. 

Discussion: This priority is intended 

to provide funding to SEAs working 

with LAs to support the LA’s Part C 

CSPD which the Department believes 

will have a positive effect on early 

intervention services for infants and 

toddlers. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter voiced 

opposition to the proposed priority 

stating that it would have the 

unintended consequence of giving a 

competitive advantage to SEAs that are 

State LAs responsible for administering 

Part C. The commenter was also 

concerned that the priority might reduce 

the competitiveness of States whose 

SPDG focus is not related to Part C. 

Discussion: The Department is 

confident that State LAs interested in 

this priority will successfully pursue a 

collaborative partnership with the SEA 

applicant and that SEAs will see the 

benefits of the collaborative partnership. 

Change: None. 

Comment: The same commenter 

shared concerns that this priority would 

be a burden for SEAs by requiring them 

to partner with LAs, oversee grant 

activities, and evaluate the LA’s efforts. 

This commenter was also concerned 

that the priority might cause an SEA to 

change its focus to a Part C activity and 

disrupt an effort already underway that 

could be funded by the SPDG. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for raising this concern. We agree that 

some additional administrative 

responsibilities could fall on an SEA 

that is not an LA to address this priority. 

The Department, however, is confident 

that establishing a working partnership 

across the SEA and LA for Part C will 

ultimately benefit infants and toddlers 

with disabilities. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported a competitive preference 

priority. 

Discussion: The Department thanks 

these commenters and will consider 

their suggestions. The specification of 

the type of priority, however, belongs in 

the NIA, not the NFP, to enable the 

Department to determine on a 

competition-by-competition basis, 

whether to make the priority an absolute 

or competitive preference priority. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported the priority as a means to 

encourage partnerships between the 

SEA and the State LA for Part C and to 

integrate early intervention personnel 

preparation and professional 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

development needs into statewide 

planning. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support for this priority, 

which requires partnerships between 

the SEA and LA. 

Changes: None. 

FINAL PRIORITY: 

Supporting an IDEA Part C 

Comprehensive System of Personnel 

Development (CSPD). 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

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 must 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) this priority will 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, 

consistent with 34 CFR 303.118(a): (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 urban 

areas; (2) Training personnel in the 

social and emotional development of 

young children; (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 must 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 must also describe the 

extent to which funds will be used on 

activities to increase and train personnel 

working with infants and toddlers and 

their families that have historically been 

underserved by Part C. 

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 this 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. 

This final 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 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35419 

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 final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

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. 

Summary of potential costs and 

benefits: The Department believes that 

the costs associated with the final 

priority 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. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department believes that the 

priority is needed to administer the 

program effectively. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final priority contains 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1820–0028; the final 

priority does not affect the currently 

approved data collection. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this final 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 final 

priority 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 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 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. 2022–12712 Filed 6–8–22; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 8 

RIN 2900–AR29 

National Service Life Insurance 

Premium Payment and Loan 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its National 

Service Life Insurance (NSLI) 

regulations to offer Service-Disabled 

Veterans’ Insurance (S–DVI) 

policyholders the option of remitting 

premiums for government life insurance 

coverage only on a monthly or annual 

basis. VA is also increasing the amount 

that Veteran policyholders are eligible 

to borrow against the value of their life 

insurance policies and to adjust the 

interest rates charged for fixed-rate 

loans in certain circumstances. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Weaver, Insurance Specialist, 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Insurance Service (310/290B), 5000 

Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 

19144, (215) 842–2000, ext. 4263. (This 

is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2021, VA published in the 

Federal Register (86 FR 56846) a 

proposed rule to amend its regulations 

governing the NSLI programs. Interested 

persons were invited to submit written 

comments on or before December 13, 

2021. VA received two comments 

concerning the proposed changes to the 

modes of payment for NSLI premiums. 

The first commenter stated that VA 

makes the ‘‘confusing argument that 

allowing veterans to pay their life 

insurance bills quarterly or semiannually adds administrative 

complexity and program costs,’’ and 

that the commenter cannot understand 

how providing additional payment 

options ‘‘should add any administrative 

complexity.’’ A second commenter 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1