[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35415-35419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12712]


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

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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107a757e7e797675623e737f767675695075743e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e343b303037383b2c703d3138383b271e3b3a70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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.

[[Page 35416]]

    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

[[Page 35417]]

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 
evidence-based, 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, community-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 35418]]

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

[[Page 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>