[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37184-37194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17916]
[[Page 37183]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 75, et al.
Direct Grant Programs; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 16, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37184]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 75, 206, 231, 235, 369, 371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 380,
381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 396, 610, 612, 630, 637, 658,
660, 661, 669
RIN 1880-AA74
Direct Grant Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) that govern discretionary
grant programs. These proposed amendments would reduce the need for
specific regulations governing individual programs while ensuring that
proposed projects meet the highest standards of professional
excellence. These proposed amendments would establish new general
selection criteria; allow programs with one or more selection criteria
in program regulations to use the criteria in combination with general
EDGAR criteria and criteria based on statutory provisions; allow
programs to assign weights to criteria; provide for using the new
general selection criteria in considering unsolicited applications; and
remove a number of regulations made unnecessary by the amendments.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New
Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5530. Comments also may be
sent through the Internet to ``EDGAR____criteria@ed.gov''.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of
Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5530.
Telephone: (202) 219-2005. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In January of 1995 the Department developed its ``Principles for
Regulating'' (Principles) premised on the tenet that the Department
will regulate only when absolutely necessary. The Principles were
developed to ensure that the Department regulates in the most flexible,
most equitable, and least burdensome way possible. The President, on
March 4, 1995, announced a Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
(Initiative) to reform the Federal regulatory system. The Initiative
required all Federal agencies to review their regulations page-by-page.
Regulators were asked to eliminate obsolete regulations, revise
regulations to reward results instead of rewarding process, and
streamline regulations to achieve agency goals in the most efficient
and least intrusive way possible. Since March of 1995, the Department
has been reviewing thoroughly all of its regulations consistent with
the Initiative and the Principles.
Through this process, the Department determined that a number of
program regulations resulted from a program's need for tailored
selection criteria for evaluating grant applications. Most Department
programs require applicants applying for a grant to address numerous
selection criteria that are detailed and specific to the particular
program. In response to the Principles, some programs, in an effort to
eliminate regulations or because the program office determined that
general selection criteria were sufficient, used the general EDGAR
selection criteria in Sec. 75.210. A number of programs, however,
continue to maintain selection criteria designed to evaluate particular
elements of a project to ensure that grants will be given only to high
quality applicants that meet specific program objectives.
The selection criteria in Sec. 75.210 are necessarily very general
and thus, for many programs, inadequate for reviewers to evaluate the
quality of an application. The Secretary proposes these amendments to
establish a menu of improved selection criteria that can be selected as
appropriate to fit the needs of individual programs and eliminate the
need for many program-specific selection criteria. With a more uniform
approach to selection criteria, applicants will be better able to
anticipate the type of information that they may be required to provide
in applying for grants. Moreover, application reviewers should have a
better understanding of the standards on which the Department evaluates
many of its programs. These amendments will create more consistency and
predictability for grant applicants.
The Secretary has already taken several steps toward increased
flexibility and consistency in establishing selection criteria. On
September 14, 1995 the Department published in the Federal Register (60
FR 47808) final regulations that contained the Standards for the
Conduct and Evaluation of Activities Carried Out by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI Standards). The OERI
Standards established evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating
grant applications and contract proposals for a variety of educational
research, development, and dissemination activities.
The Secretary bases this proposed menu of selection criteria for
Sec. 75.210 on the OERI Standards' evaluation criteria, the current
EDGAR regulations, and other changes needed to cover the broad spectrum
of Department programs that will be affected.
In addition to the OERI Standards, the Department published final
regulations in the Federal Register on December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63873)
that created a new Sec. 75.209 of EDGAR that authorizes the Secretary
to establish selection criteria based on statutory provisions that
apply to the program, without notice and comment on the specific
criteria established.
These proposed amendments to Sec. 75.210 and Sec. 75.209 would
authorize the Secretary to evaluate applications by applying the
general selection criteria (Sec. 75.210), selection criteria based on
the statutory provisions that apply to the program (Sec. 75.209), or
any combination of general selection criteria, criteria based on the
statute, or criteria in program-specific regulations. The amendments
would also allow the Secretary the flexibility to weigh the criteria
according to the needs of each individual program.
Proposed Selection Criteria (Sec. 75.210)
These proposed amendments would establish a menu of selection
criteria. For each competition, the Secretary would select from the
menu one or more criteria that best enable the Department to identify
the highest quality applications consistent with the program purpose,
statutory requirements, and any priorities established. Within each
criterion, the Secretary could further define the criterion by
selecting one or more specific factors.
Two criteria, however, contain factors that would always be
considered if the criterion is selected. Under the ``quality of project
services'' criterion, the Secretary would always evaluate the quality
and sufficiency of strategies for
[[Page 37185]]
ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants
who are members of groups that have been traditionally
underrepresented. Under the ``quality of project personnel'' criterion,
the Secretary would always evaluate the extent to which an applicant
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of
groups that have been traditionally underrepresented. The Department's
consideration of these factors, which first appeared in EDGAR in 1980,
continues to reflect the Department's mission to ensure equal access to
educational opportunities as embodied in the Department of Education
Organization Act and recently reaffirmed by Congress in section 427 of
the General Education Provisions Act.
Under this menu approach, in addition to selecting criteria, the
Secretary would establish the number of points or the weight to be
given to each criterion or factor. The applicable selection criteria
and the assigned points or weights would be announced in the
application package or in a notice published in the Federal Register.
The Secretary would not solicit further public comment on the choice or
weighting of the criteria. The public would have some opportunity to
comment on criteria through the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which
requires an opportunity for public comment on application packages.
The Secretary would select criteria and factors appropriate to the
nature and purposes of the grant program. For example, in the case of a
national research center competition, the Secretary could select the
criterion ``Significance'' (Sec. 75.210(b)(2)) and then further select
factor (C), ``the potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies,'' and factor (D), ``the potential contribution
of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory
and knowledge in the field of study.'' In the case of a competition for
demonstration activities, the Secretary could choose other factors
under the ``Significance'' criterion; for example: (E), ``the potential
for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed
project,'' and (F) ``the extent to which the proposed project involves
the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build
on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.'' In the case of a
competition for training activities, the Secretary could select the
criterion ``Need for project'' (Sec. 75.210(b)(1)) and could choose
factor (A), ``the magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed
by the proposed project,'' and factor (D), ``the extent to which
specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or
opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the
proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or
weaknesses.''
The Secretary could determine that, for some competitions, it is
not necessary to further define a criterion by selecting specific
factors. If no factors are chosen, the application reviewer would apply
the criterion in the context of a particular competition. The reviewer
would not have to consider any of the factors.
Advantages and Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments provide an opportunity to improve
significantly the grant application review process. This menu of
selection criteria would provide the Department the flexibility to
choose, from among the criteria and factors established in the
regulations, a set of criteria tailored to a given competition. In
selecting from the menu a set of criteria and factors for a particular
competition, the Secretary would not solicit formal public comment but
expects to draw on input from grantees and program beneficiaries;
feedback from peer reviewers and program evaluators; discussions among
Department employees, grantees, and program beneficiaries; and
meetings, conferences, visits to grantees, and other forms of outreach
and exchange with the relevant communities.
Also, the menu approach would obviate the need to create specific
selection criteria through individual program regulations. Because no
time will be spent developing program-specific regulations, the
Secretary will be able to make grants earlier or give applicants more
time to prepare their applications, or both. The Secretary expects
these amendments to allow the Department to conduct grant competitions
at a time that would best address grantees' planning and implementation
cycles, such as announcing during the spring for programs involving
school districts. The Secretary believes applicants would find that
criteria selected from the menu for specific competitions would provide
them with adequate guidance about review standards, and also with
flexibility to design and propose the projects that they believe best
serve their needs.
The Secretary is particularly interested in comments from potential
grant applicants and intended program beneficiaries on this proposed
approach. The value of this approach lies in expediting the grantmaking
process by reducing separate program regulations and in minimizing
potentially confusing variety in selection criteria on the same
subject. Do applicants or program beneficiaries support this approach?
For example, do applicants and program beneficiaries agree that the
anticipated advantages, such as increased consistency in phrasing of
selection criteria across programs and earlier grant awards, are
valuable? Are there any revisions that would improve this proposed
rule? For example, would it be preferable to limit the number or
percentage of points that could be assigned to any particular criterion
or factor? Are there any costs associated with shifting from using
selection criteria tailored to individual programs to using a flexible
menu of general selection criteria? If yes, what are those costs and
does the benefit of the added flexibility of the proposed approach
justify the costs? Would these proposed amendments have other effects?
Other CFR Parts and Sections Affected by These Amendments
These proposed amendments would also revise Sec. 75.201 to inform
applicants that programs may assign weights to criteria in evaluating
applications and would create a new Sec. 75.211 regarding selection
criteria for unsolicited applications. Also, these amendments would
revise Secs. 75.200 and 75.209 to allow programs with one or more
selection criteria in program regulations to use the criteria in
combination with general EDGAR criteria and criteria based on statutory
provisions.
Only those programs that currently have no program regulations,
have no selection criteria in their program regulations, are new, or
are listed in either chart below would be able to use the menu approach
when the amendments became effective. Before any other programs could
use this approach, the Department would need to amend the program
regulations through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. When
these amendments to part 75 are published as final regulations, the
Department intends in that same document to repeal certain regulations
of programs that will use these selection criteria. The Department
would repeal all of the regulations governing the following programs:
[[Page 37186]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of program 34 CFR part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug-free Schools and Communities--General Provisions...... 231
Drug-free Schools and Communities--Federal Activities
Grants Program............................................ 235
Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing
Vocational Rehabilitation Services to Individuals with
Disabilities.............................................. 373
Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects Program for
Migratory Agricultural Workers and Seasonal Farmworkers
with Disabilities......................................... 375
Projects for Initiating Recreational Programs for
Individuals with Disabilities............................. 378
School, College, and University Partnerships............... 610
Drug Prevention Programs in Higher Education............... 612
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education........ 630
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department would remove selection criteria from the following
program regulations and make technical amendments to the following
other sections of the regulations to reflect the use of the general
EDGAR selection criteria (program regulations affecting matters other
than selection criteria would remain in effect):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of program 34 CFR sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Educational Programs for Students Whose 206.30 and 206.31.
Families Are Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal
Farmwork--High School Equivalency Program and College
Assistance Migrant Program.
Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects............. 369.1, 369.2, 369.21, 369.30,
369.31, 369.32, and 369.42.
Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects for American 371.30.
Indians with Disabilities.
Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing 376.31.
Transitional Rehabilitation Services to Youth with
Disabilities.
Special Projects and Demonstrations for Providing 380.10, 380.11, 380.12,
Supported Employment Services to Individual With the 380.13, and 380.14.
Most Severe Disabilities and Technical Assistance
Projects.
Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights........... 381.20 and 381.21.
Rehabilitation Training................................ 385.31, 385.32, and 385.33.
Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term 386.20.
Training.
Experimental and Innovative Training................... 387.30
State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service 388.20.
Training.
Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs........... 389.30.
Rehabilitation Short-Term Training..................... 390.30
Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf 396.30, 396.31, and 396.32.
and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind.
Minority Science Improvement Program................... 637.31 and 637.32.
Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 658.30, 658.31, 658.32,
Language Program. 658.33, and 658.34.
The International Research and Studies Program......... 660.30, 660.31, 660.32,
and 660.33.
Business and International Education Program........... 661.30 and 661.31.
Language Resource Centers Program...................... 669.20, 669.21, and 669.22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 12866
1. Assessment of Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action.
The benefits of these proposed regulations would include improving
the Department's ability to make grants more quickly, eliminating
unnecessary regulations, and creating a single overall approach for
evaluating applications for a number of programs. These proposed
regulations would result in better access to Department regulations
that apply to many programs and would better inform applicants and
application reviewers of project qualities that the Department values
across programs.
The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are
those determined by the Secretary as necessary for administering this
program effectively and efficiently. Burdens specifically associated
with information collection requirements, if any, are identified and
explained elsewhere in this preamble under the heading Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the
regulations justify the costs.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comment on
whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration
of the program.
The potential costs and benefits of these proposed regulations are
discussed elsewhere in this preamble under the following topic heading:
Proposed Selection Criteria.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations
clearly stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a
numbered heading; for example,
[[Page 37187]]
Sec. 75.210 General selection criteria.) (4) Is the description of the
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this
preamble helpful in understanding the regulations? How could this
description be more helpful in making the regulations easier to
understand? (5) What else could the Department do to make the
regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Ave., SW., Room 5121, FB10, Washington, DC
20202-2110.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
These regulations could affect States, State agencies, and
individuals. States, State agencies, and individuals, however, are not
defined as ``small entities'' in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The small entities that could be affected by these regulations are
institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, private
schools, community-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations
receiving Federal funds under a direct grant program. The proposed
regulations, however, would not have a significant economic impact on
these entities, if affected, because the regulations would not impose
excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The proposed regulations would impose minimal requirements
for the Secretary to select grantees.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Section 75.210 contains information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the Department of Education has submitted a copy of this section to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: Direct Grant Programs--General Selection
Criteria.
These regulations would affect the following types of entities
eligible to apply for grants and cooperative agreements: State, local,
or tribal governments or agencies, businesses or other for-profit
organizations, nonprofit institutions, individuals, and any
combinations of these types of entities. The Department needs and uses
the information to evaluate applications for funding.
The total annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is one hour for one respondent. For programs
that may use the EDGAR selection criteria, the annual public reporting
and recordkeeping burden is estimated to range from 15 hours for each
of approximately 750 applications for a field-initiated research study
to 150 hours for ten or fewer applications for a research center. The
total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for each program using
the EDGAR selection criteria will be determined by the number of
applicants that respond to an application notice and the type of
project to be supported in the particular competition. The actual
burden and total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for each
program will be assigned as an application package is cleared by OMB
under the procedures in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. For
example, if a program using the EDGAR selection criteria had a public
reporting and recordkeeping burden of 90 hours for each respondent and
received 300 applications, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden for that program would be 27,000 hours. For some programs using
the menu approach, the reporting and recordkeeping burden will be less
than under the prior process.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Wendy Taylor, Desk
Officer for the U.S. Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
Some of the programs that would be affected by these regulations
are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive order is
to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local
governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
these programs.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Room 600, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 75
Administrative practice and procedure, Continuation funding,
Education, Grant programs--education, Grants administration,
Incorporation by reference, Performance reports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Unobligated funds.
34 CFR Part 206
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
[[Page 37188]]
Educational study programs, Grants program--education, Migrant labor,
Students, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 231
Drug abuse, Elementary and secondary education, Grants program--
education.
34 CFR Part 235
Drug abuse, Elementary and secondary education, Grants program--
education.
34 CFR Part 369
American Indians, Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational
rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 371
American Indians, Disabled, Employment, Grants program--education,
Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 373
Blind, Deaf, Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational
rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 375
Disabled, Grants program--education, Migrant labor, Vocational
rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 376
Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational rehabilitation,
Youth.
34 CFR Part 378
Arts and crafts, Disabled, Grants program--education, Hobbies,
Recreation and recreation areas, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 380
Disabled, Grants program--education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 381
Advocacy, Disabled, Grants program--education.
34 CFR Part 385
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 386
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 387
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 388
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 390
Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational training,
Training programs, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 396
Blind, Deaf, Disabled, Grants program--education, Occupational
training, Training programs, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 610
Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education,
Education of disadvantaged, Education of students with disabilities,
Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 612
Colleges and universities, Drug abuse, Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 630
Colleges and universities, Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 637
Colleges and universities, Grant programs--education, Minority
groups, Science and technology, Women.
34 CFR Part 658
Colleges and universities, Educational study program, Foreign
relations, Grant programs--education, Teachers.
34 CFR Part 660
Colleges and universities, Educational research, Foreign relations,
Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 661
Business and industry, Colleges and universities, Exports, Foreign
relations, Foreign trade, Grant programs--education.
34 CFR Part 669
Colleges and universities, Educational research, Foreign relations,
Grant programs--education, Teachers.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply)
Dated: June 13, 1996.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend parts 75, 206, 231, 235, 369, 371,
373, 375, 376, 378, 380, 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 396, 610,
612, 630, 637, 658, 660, 661, and 669 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 75--DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for Part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 75.200(b)(3)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.200 How applications for new grants and cooperative agreements
are selected for funding; standards for use of cooperative agreements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Unless the regulations for a program state otherwise, the
Secretary uses one of the following to evaluate applications for new
grants under the program:
* * * * *
(iii) Any combination of selection criteria established under
Sec. 75.209, selection criteria in Sec. 75.210, and selection criteria
in the program's regulations.
* * * * *
3. Section 75.201 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.201 How the selection criteria will be used.
(a) If points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria,
the Secretary informs applicants in the application package or a notice
published in the Federal Register of--
(1) The total possible score for all of the criteria for a program;
and
(2) The assigned weight or the maximum possible score for each
criterion or factor under that criterion.
(b) If no points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria
and selected factors, the Secretary evaluates each criterion equally
and, within each criterion, each factor equally.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
Sec. 75.209 [Amended]
4. Section 75.209(a) is amended by removing ``If a discretionary
grant program does not have implementing regulations or has
implementing regulations that do not include selection criteria,'' and
capitalizing the word ``the''.
5. Section 75.210 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.210 General selection criteria.
(a) In addition to the selection criteria established in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Secretary may use criteria established under
Sec. 75.209 or selection criteria in program specific regulations.
(b) In determining the selection criteria to be used in each grant
[[Page 37189]]
competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following
criteria and may select from among the specific factors listed under
each criterion:
(1) Need for project. (i) The Secretary considers the need for the
proposed project.
(ii) In determining the need for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the
proposed project.
(B) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or
the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(C) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services
or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational
failure.
(D) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving
or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals.
(E) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses.
(F) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel
for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated.
(2) Significance. (i) The Secretary considers the significance of
the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The national significance of the proposed project.
(B) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the
proposed project.
(C) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or
effective strategies.
(D) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of rehabilitation problems, issues, or
effective strategies.
(E) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system
change or improvement.
(F) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the
field of study.
(G) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of
the proposed project.
(H) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield
findings that may be utilized by other appropriate agencies and
organizations.
(I) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the
needs of the target population.
(J) The extent to which the proposed project involves the
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on,
or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(K) The likely utility of the products (such as information,
materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed
project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a
variety of other settings.
(L) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to
be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information
or strategies.
(M) The potential replicability of the proposed project or
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation
in a variety of settings.
(N) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
teaching and student achievement.
(O) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
employment and independent living services.
(P) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(3) Quality of the project design. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the design of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(B) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs.
(C) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework.
(D) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a
coherent, sustained program of research and development in the field,
including, as appropriate, a substantial addition to an ongoing line of
inquiry.
(E) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a
coherent, sustained program of training in the field.
(F) The extent to which the proposed project is based upon a
specific research design, and the quality and appropriateness of that
design, including the scientific rigor of the studies involved.
(G) The extent to which the proposed research design includes a
thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-
quality plan for research activities, and the use of appropriate
theoretical and methodological tools, including those of a variety of
disciplines, where appropriate.
(H) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes
a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-
quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate
methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project
objectives.
(I) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures
for documenting project activities and results.
(J) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible
replication of project activities or strategies, including information
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the
project.
(K) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include
adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of
products.
(L) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of
Federal financial assistance.
(M) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects
up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(N) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.
(O) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the
competition.
(P) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated
with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community,
State, and Federal resources.
(Q) The extent to which the proposed project will establish
linkages with other appropriate agencies and
[[Page 37190]]
organizations providing services to the target population.
(R) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a
comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support
rigorous academic standards for students.
(S) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental
involvement.
(T) The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer
involvement.
(U) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(V) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed
project.
(W) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project
participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.
(4) Quality of project services. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(iii) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors:
(A) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or
beneficiaries of those services.
(B) The extent to which entities that are to be served by the
proposed technical assistance project demonstrate support for the
project.
(C) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective
practice.
(D) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the
proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(E) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services.
(F) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to alleviate
the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of
the proposed project.
(G) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed
project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as
measured against rigorous academic standards.
(H) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed
project will lead to improvements in the skills necessary to gain
employment or build capacity for independent living.
(I) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for
maximizing the effectiveness of project services.
(J) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be
provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient
strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the
leveraging of non-project resources.
(K) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project are focused on those with greatest needs.
(L) The quality of plans for providing an opportunity for
participation in the proposed project of students enrolled in private
schools.
(5) Quality of project personnel. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages 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.
(iii) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors:
(A) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director or principal investigator.
(B) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of key project personnel.
(C) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of project consultants or subcontractors.
(6) Adequacy of resources. (i) The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(A) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization.
(B) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(C) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project.
(D) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(E) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and
benefits.
(F) The potential for continued support of the project after
Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated
commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
(G) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or
organization at the end of Federal funding.
(7) Quality of the management plan. (i) The Secretary considers the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following
factors:
(A) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(B) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(C) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(D) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
(E) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
(8) Quality of the project evaluation. (i) The Secretary considers
the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers one or more of the following factors:
[[Page 37191]]
(A) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(B) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate
to the context within which the project operates.
(C) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
(D) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible.
(E) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
timely guidance for quality assurance.
(F) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(G) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
6. A new section 75.211 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.211 Selection criteria for unsolicited applications.
(a) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34
CFR 75.222(a)(2)(ii), the Secretary uses the selection criteria and
factors, if any, used for the competition under which the application
could have been funded.
(b) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34
CFR 75.222(a)(2)(iii), the Secretary selects from among the criteria in
75.210(b), and may select from among the specific factors listed under
each criterion, the criteria that are most appropriate to evaluate the
activities proposed in the application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
PART 206--SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES
ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT AND OTHER SEASONAL FARMWORK--HIGH SCHOOL
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT PROGRAM
7. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2, unless otherwise noted.
8. Section 206.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 206.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(a) and (e))
Sec. 206.31 [Removed]
9. Section 206.31 is removed.
PART 231--DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES--GENERAL PROVISIONS
[REMOVED]
10. Part 231 is removed.
PART 235--DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES--FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
GRANTS PROGRAM [REMOVED]
11. Part 235 is removed.
PART 369--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS
12. The authority citation for part 369 is removed to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), 732, 750, 777(a)(1), 777b, 777f and
795g, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 369.1 [Amended]
13. Section 369.1 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(4), by removing in paragraph (b)(3) ``(34 CFR part 373)'', in
paragraph (b)(5) ``(34 CFR part 375)'', and in paragraph (b)(7) ``(34
CFR part 378)'', and by redesignating paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(5),
(b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8) as paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4),
(b)(5), and (b)(6) respectively.
Sec. 369.2 [Amended]
14. Section 369.2 is amended by removing paragraphs (b) and (d) and
by redesignating paragraphs (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs
(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) respectively.
Sec. 369.21 [Amended]
15. Section 369.21 is amended by removing ``under 34 CFR parts 372,
373, 374, 375, 376, 378, or 379'', and adding, in its place, ``covered
by this part''.
16. Section 369.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 369.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR Part 75.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))
Sec. 369.31 [Removed]
17. Section 369.31 is removed.
Sec. 369.32 [Amended]
18. Section 369.32 is amended by removing ``listed in Sec. 369.31
and 34 CFR parts 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, and 379'', in the
introductory text and adding, in its place, ``used in accordance with
the procedures in 34 CFR part 75''.
Sec. 369.42 [Amended]
19. Section 369.42 paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``34 CFR
parts 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, or 379'', and adding, in its
place, ``a program covered by this part''.
PART 371--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS FOR AMERICAN
INDIANS WITH DISABILITIES
20. The authority citation for part 371 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 750, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 371.30 [Removed]
21. Section 371.30 is removed.
PART 373--SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR PROVIDING
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
[REMOVED]
22. Part 373 is removed.
PART 375--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS PROGRAM FOR
MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS WITH
DISABILITIES [REMOVED]
23. Part 375 is removed.
PART 376--SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR PROVIDING
TRANSITIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES TO YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES
24. The authority citation for part 376 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 777a(b), unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 376.31 [Removed]
25. Section 376.31 is removed.
PART 378--PROJECTS FOR INITIATING RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES [REMOVED]
26. Part 378 is removed.
[[Page 37192]]
PART 380--SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR PROVIDING
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH THE MOST SEVERE
DISABILITIES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS
27. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 777a(c), unless otherwise noted.
28. Section 380.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 380.10 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR Part 75.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 777a(c))
Secs. 380.11, 380.12, and 380.13 [Removed]
29. Sections 380.11, 380.12, and 380.13 are removed.
30. Section 380.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 380.14 What other factors does the Secretary consider in
reviewing an application?
In addition to the selection criteria used in accordance with the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75, the Secretary, in making awards under
this part, considers the geographical distribution of projects in each
program category throughout the country.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 777a(a)(1) and 777a(c))
PART 381--PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
31. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794e, unless otherwise noted.
32. Section 381.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 381.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
In any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated for the PAIR
program is less than $5,500,000, the Secretary evaluates applications
under the procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 794e (b) and (f))
Sec. 380.21 [Removed]
33. Section 381.21 is removed.
PART 385--REHABILITATION TRAINING
34. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), 772, and 774, unless otherwise
noted.
35. Section 385.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 385.31 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
(a) The Secretary evaluates applications under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75.
(b) The Secretary evaluates each application using selection
criteria identified in parts 386, 387, 388, 389 and 390, as
appropriate.
(c) In addition to the selection criteria described in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Secretary evaluates each application using-
(1) Selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210;
(2) Selection criteria established under 34 CFR 75.209; or
(3) A combination of selection criteria established under 34 CFR
75.209 and selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))
Sec. 385.32 [Removed]
36. Section 385.32 is removed.
Sec. 385.33 [Amended]
37. Section 385.33 is revised by removing the number ``385.32'' in
the introductory text and adding in its place the number ``75.210''.
PART 386--REHABILITATION TRAINING: REHABILITATION LONG-TERM
TRAINING
38. The authority citation for part 386 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
39. Section 386.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 386.20 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criteria to evaluate an application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service program.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the project
can be expected either--
(i) To increase the supply of trained personnel available to State
and other public or nonprofit agencies involved in the rehabilitation
of individuals with physical or mental disabilities through degree or
certificate granting programs; or
(ii) To improve the skills and quality of professional personnel in
the rehabilitation field in which the training is to be provided
through the granting of a degree or certificate.
(b) Nature and scope of curriculum. (1) The Secretary reviews each
application for information that demonstrates the adequacy of the
proposed curriculum.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows--
(i) The scope and nature of the coursework reflect content that can
be expected to enable the achievement of the established project
objectives;
(ii) The curriculum and teaching methods provide for an integration
of theory and practice relevant to the educational objectives of the
program;
(iii) There is evidence of educationally focused practical and
other field experiences in settings that ensure student involvement in
the provision of vocational rehabilitation, supported employment, or
independent living rehabilitation services to individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with severe disabilities;
(iv) The coursework includes student exposure to vocational
rehabilitation, supported employment, or independent living
rehabilitation processes, concepts, programs, and services; and
(v) If applicable, there is evidence of current professional
accreditation by the designated accrediting agency in the professional
field in which grant support is being requested.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 771a)
PART 387--EXPERIMENTAL AND INNOVATIVE TRAINING
40. The authority citation for part 387 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
41. Section 387.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 387.30 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criteria to evaluate an application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service program.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the project
can be expected either--
(i) To increase the supply of trained personnel available to public
and private agencies involved in the
[[Page 37193]]
rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities; or
(ii) To maintain and improve the skills and quality of
rehabilitation workers.
(b) Nature and scope of curriculum. (1) The Secretary reviews each
application for information that demonstrates the adequacy and scope of
the proposed curriculum.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that--
(i) The scope and nature of the training content can be expected to
enable the achievement of the established project objectives of the
training project;
(ii) The curriculum and teaching methods provide for an integration
of theory and practice relevant to the educational objectives of the
program;
(iii) There is evidence of educationally focused practicum or other
field experiences in settings that assure student involvement in the
provision of vocational rehabilitation or independent living
rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities, especially
individuals with severe disabilities; and
(iv) The didactic coursework includes student exposure to
vocational rehabilitation or independent living rehabilitation
processes, concepts, programs, and services.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774)
PART 388--STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION UNIT IN-SERVICE TRAINING
42. The authority citation for Part 388 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
43. Section 388.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 388.20 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the selection criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the
Secretary uses the following additional selection criteria to evaluate
an application:
(a) Evidence of need. (1) The Secretary reviews each application
for information that shows that the need for the in-service training
has been adequately justified.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows--
(i) How the proposed project relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service program and can be expected to improve
the competence of all State vocational rehabilitation personnel in
providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with
disabilities that will result in employment outcomes or otherwise
contribute to more effective management of the State unit program;
(ii) That the State unit in-service training plan responds to needs
identified in their training needs assessment and the proposed training
relates to the unit's State plan, particularly the requirements in
section 101(a)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act for each designated State
unit to develop a comprehensive system of personnel development;
(iii) The need for training methods and materials that will be
useful in determining how in-service training improves the impact and
effectiveness of services to individuals with disabilities assisted
under the Rehabilitation Act to ensure employment outcomes; and
(iv) The State has conducted a needs assessment of the in-service
training needs for all of the State unit employees.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), 770, and 771a)
PART 389--REHABILITATION CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS
44. The authority citation for Part 389 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
45. Section 389.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 389.30 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criterion to evaluate an
application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service programs.
(2) The Secretary reviews each application for information that
shows that the proposed project includes an assessment of the potential
of existing programs within the geographical area (including State
vocational rehabilitation unit in-service training) to meet the needs
for which support is sought.
(3) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the
proposed project can be expected to improve the competence of
professional and other personnel in the rehabilitation agencies serving
individuals with severe disabilities.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))
PART 390--REHABILITATION SHORT-TERM TRAINING
46. The authority citation for Part 390 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774, unless otherwise noted.
47. Section 390.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 390.30 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 385.31(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criterion to evaluate an
application:
(a) Relevance to State-Federal rehabilitation service program. (1)
The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that
the proposed project appropriately relates to the mission of the State-
Federal rehabilitation service programs.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the
proposed project can be expected to improve the skills and competence
of--
(i) Personnel engaged in the administration or delivery of
rehabilitation services; and
(ii) Others with an interest in the delivery of rehabilitation
services.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and 774)
PART 396--TRAINING OF INTERPRETERS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF AND
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF-BLIND
48. The authority citation for Part 396 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 771a(f), unless otherwise noted.
49. Section 396.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 396.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
(a) The Secretary evaluates applications under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75.
(b) The Secretary evaluates each application using selection
criteria in Sec. 396.31.
(c) In addition to the selection criteria described in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Secretary evaluates each application using--
(1) Selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210;
(2) Selection criteria established under 34 CFR 75.209; or
(3) A combination of selection criteria established under 34 CFR
75.209 and selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 771a(f))
50. Section 396.31 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 37194]]
Sec. 396.31 What additional selection criteria are used under this
program?
In addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 396.30(c), the Secretary uses
the following additional selection criterion to evaluate an
application:
(a) Demonstrated relationships with service providers and
consumers. The Secretary reviews each application to determine the
extent to which--
(1) The proposed interpreter training project was developed in
consultation with service providers;
(2) The training is appropriate to the needs of both individuals
who are deaf and individuals who are deaf-blind and to the needs of
public and private agencies that provide services to either individuals
who are deaf or individuals who are deaf-blind in the geographical area
to be served by the training project;
(3) There is a working relationship between the interpreter
training project and service providers; and
(4) There are opportunities for individuals who are deaf and
individuals who are deaf-blind to be involved in the training project.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 771a(f))
Sec. 396.32 [Amended]
51. Section 396.32 is amended by adding after the number ``396.31''
the cross-reference ``and 34 CFR 75.210''.
PART 610--SCHOOL, COLLEGE, AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS [REMOVED]
52. Part 610 is removed.
PART 612--DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION [REMOVED]
53. Part 612 is removed.
PART 630--FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
[REMOVED]
54. Part 630 is removed.
PART 637--MINORITY SCIENCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
55. The authority citation for part 637 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1135b-1135b-3, 1135d-1135d-3, 1135d-5, and
1135d-6, unless otherwise noted.
56. Section 637.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 637.31 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in
34 CFR Part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR Part 75.
(b) The Secretary gives priority to applicants that have not
previously received funding from the program and to previous grantees
with a proven record of success, as well as to applications that
contribute to achieving balance among funded projects with respect to--
(1) Geographic region;
(2) Academic discipline; and
(3) Project type.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1135b-1 and 1135d-3)
Sec. 637.32 [Removed]
57. Section 637.32 is removed.
PART 658--UNDERGRADUATE INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
PROGRAM
58. The authority citation for part 658 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124, unless otherwise noted.
59. Section 658.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 658.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124)
Secs. 658.31, 658.32, and 658.33 [Removed]
60. Sections 658.31, 658.32, and 658.33 are removed.
Sec. 658.34 [Amended]
61. Section 658.34 is amended by removing the comma after the word
``in'' and by removing the words and numbers ``as appropriate
Secs. 658.31, 658.32, and 658.33,'' and adding in their place the
number ``Sec. 75.210''.
PART 660--THE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDIES PROGRAM
62. The authority citation for Part 660 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1125, unless otherwise noted.
63. Section 660.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1125)
Secs. 660.31, 660.32, and 660.33 [Removed]
64. Sections 660.31, 660.32 and 660.33 are removed.
PART 661--BUSINESS AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
65. The authority citation for part 661 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1130-1130b, unless otherwise noted.
66. Section 661.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 661.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1130a)
Sec. 661.31 [Removed]
67. Section 661.31 is removed.
PART 669--LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM
68. The authority citation for part 669 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123, unless otherwise noted.
69. Section 669.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 669.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates an application under the procedures in 34
CFR part 75 and using the selection criteria established under the
procedures in 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)
Sec. 669.21 [Removed]
70. Section 669.21 is removed.
71. Section 669.22 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 669.22 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
* * * * *
(c) If the Secretary establishes one or more priorities under this
section, the Secretary may award an applicant up to an additional 20
possible points for meeting the priority.
[FR Doc. 96-17916 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
