[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[email protected]''.
    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