[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54024-54027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26413]



[[Page 54023]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



34 CFR Part 400, et al.



Vocational and Adult Education Programs; Regulatory Reinvention; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 16, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 54024]]



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 400, 401, 402, 403, 406, 410, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421, 
425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 460, 461, 464, 472, 477, 489, 490, and 491


Regulatory Reinvention for Vocational and Adult Education 
Programs

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary is giving the public early notice of regulatory 
actions the Secretary intends to take regarding the vocational and 
adult education programs. This notice solicits public input to help 
guide the Department in revising and simplifying regulations and 
reducing regulatory burden.

DATES: Comments will be most useful if submitted by November 15, 1996.

ADDRESS: Patricia W. McNeil, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and 
Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, 
S.W. (Room 4090, Switzer Building), Washington, D.C. 20202-7100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Weintraub, telephone (202) 205-
5602. 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 
except Federal holidays. Internet: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The President, on March 4, 1995, announced a Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative to reform the Federal regulatory system. The Initiative 
requires all Federal agencies to review their regulations page by page 
in an effort to eliminate obsolete regulations, improve or reinvent 
regulations, revise regulations to reward results rather than process, 
and streamline regulations to achieve agency goals in the most 
efficient and least intrusive way possible. Since then, the Department 
has been thoroughly reviewing all of its regulations pursuant to the 
President's instructions.
    As directed by the President, in June of 1995 each Federal agency 
submitted a plan to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
describing the actions it planned to take to eliminate or improve 
existing regulations. The Secretary committed to the President to 
eliminate or reinvent 1,984 pages of regulations, representing 93 
percent of the Department's regulations. As of August 31, 1996, the 
Department had eliminated or reinvented 1,827 pages (approximately 92%) 
of the regulations the Department is committed to changing. These 
numbers include proposed significant statutory changes that, if 
enacted, would lead to immediate regulatory elimination or reinvention.
    Regulatory review and improvement are occurring Departmentwide. The 
Department already instituted a number of reforms that have led to 
fewer regulations and better decisions about when to regulate. For 
example, the Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education 
identified regulations that were no longer necessary for 20 programs, 
eliminating over 80 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations in May 
1995 (see 60 FR 27223, May 23, 1995). Efforts in other offices have 
resulted in elimination of paperwork burden, increased flexibility, and 
fewer regulatory requirements.

Reinvention of Vocational and Adult Education Programs

    Comprehensive legislative reform proposals that would have 
significantly changed the existing vocational and adult education 
programs were not enacted by the 104th Congress. Because these 
proposals were not enacted, the Department plans to move forward on its 
normal cycle for reviewing the existing regulations governing these 
programs.

General Questions

    In an initial review of the remaining regulations governing the 
adult and vocational education programs, the Secretary has identified 
four broad categories of regulatory provisions:
    1. Regulations that merely restate statutory language.
    2. Obsolete regulations, i.e., those that govern unfunded programs 
or contain provisions that no longer have any meaning or effect.
    3. Regulations that both restate statutory language and interpret 
the statute.
    4. Regulations that impose requirements not explicitly required by 
statute. The Secretary plans to eliminate regulations that fall into 
the first two categories unless the public gives the Secretary reasons 
to retain those types of regulations. The Secretary would like input 
from the public in deciding how to treat the regulations in the third 
and fourth categories. For regulations in the third and fourth 
categories that are determined, at the conclusion of the review 
process, to be necessary for effective program administration, the 
Secretary would maintain, but review and improve them. Examples of all 
these types of regulations and specific questions follow in the 
sections describing the vocational and adult education programs.
    In addition to the specific questions that follow, the Secretary 
requests comments on the following general questions:
     Are there reasons why the Department should not eliminate 
regulations that simply restate the law? If the Department eliminates 
these provisions, would it be helpful to explain statutory requirements 
and information currently codified in regulations in a guidebook or 
other resource?
     Would the changes proposed in this notice have any effects 
the Department may not have anticipated?
     Would the actions described in this advance notice provide 
useful regulatory relief?
     Are there other ways the Secretary could reduce costs and 
burdens associated with these regulations?

Vocational Education Programs

    The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
Act, Public Law 101-392, (Perkins Act) authorizes the Department to 
fund vocational programs offered in secondary and postsecondary 
schools. Under the State Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
Program, the Department makes formula grants to States and Outlying 
Areas to expand and improve their programs of vocational education and 
provide equal access in vocational education to members of special 
populations, such as individuals with disabilities or economically 
disadvantaged students. In addition, the national programs authorized 
by the Perkins Act support research, demonstration, development, and 
dissemination activities, with special emphasis on the integration of 
academic and vocational education, and development of business and 
education standards designed to improve vocational education across the 
country. Emphasis is also given to improving access of populations, 
such as American Indians and Native Hawaiians, to quality vocational 
education programs.
    The vocational education programs governed by regulations in Title 
34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are:
     Indian Vocational Education Program (Part 401)
     Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program (Part 402)

[[Page 54025]]

     State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program 
(Part 403)
     State-Administered Tech-Prep Education Program (Part 406)
     Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions 
Program (Part 410)
     Vocational Education Research Program (Part 411)
     National Network for Curriculum Coordination in Vocational 
and Technical Education (Part 412)
     National Center or Centers for Research in Vocational 
Education (Part 413)
     Demonstration Centers for the Training of Dislocated 
Workers Program (Part 415)
     Business and Education Standards Program (Part 421)
     Demonstration Projects for the Integration of Vocational 
and Academic Learning Program (Part 425)
     Cooperative Demonstration Program (Part 426)
     Bilingual Vocational Training Program (Part 427)
     Bilingual Vocational Instructor Training Program (Part 
428)
     Bilingual Vocational Materials, Methods, and Techniques 
Program (Part 429)
    In addition to reviewing regulations governing specific vocational 
education programs, the Secretary is reviewing and may revise the 
regulations in 34 CFR Part 400, Vocational and Applied Technology 
Education Programs--General Provisions, which apply to all of the 
vocational education programs.
    Section 563 of the Improving America's Schools Act, however, 
restricts the Department from changing any regulations regarding 
special populations and local evaluations until the Perkins Act is 
reauthorized. Therefore, those regulations are not included in this 
effort to review and improve the regulations governing the vocational 
education programs.

Examples of Vocational Education Regulations to Eliminate

    The Secretary plans to eliminate the regulations described in this 
section because they repeat statutory language. Examples include 
Sec. 403.61, which restates section 516(c) of the Perkins Act, and 
Sec. 403.62, which restates sections 516(b) and (d) of the Perkins Act, 
in the State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program. These 
sections describe permissible project services and activities under the 
basic grant and the applicable administrative provisions. Another 
example of a regulatory provision that the Secretary intends to 
eliminate is Sec. 403.70, which restates section 201 of the Act 
regarding how a State must use funds to conduct programs, projects, 
services, and activities under the State Programs and State Leadership 
Activities. An example of a regulatory provision in the-State-
Administered Tech-Prep Education Program that restates statutory 
language is Sec. 406.3. This provision repeats the requirements in 
section 344 of the Perkins Act, regarding the projects that a State 
board assists and how funds must be spent. All of these are examples of 
the types of regulations that the Secretary plans to eliminate.
    In addition, there are a number of regulatory provisions that 
merely restate statutory language, but that consolidate related 
requirements from many sections of the Perkins Act in one regulatory 
provision for convenience and clarity. For example, Sec. 403.32 
consolidates requirements related to the State plan for vocational 
education that are imposed by 15 provisions of the Perkins Act. The 
Secretary would like input from the public on how to approach 
regulations, such as Sec. 403.32, that both restate statutory language 
and consolidate related requirements. Are there ways that are as good 
or better than regulations for providing the same consolidation and 
clarification that would allow the Department to shorten the 
regulations and make clear which requirements are statutory? Would it 
be useful to retain these types of regulatory provisions?
    Moreover, the Department plans to eliminate regulations that 
address unfunded programs. For example, the Department would eliminate 
Subpart F (Sec. 403.130-Sec. 403.174) of the regulations governing the 
State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program (34 CFR Part 
403). Subpart F governs the special programs in Title III of the 
Perkins Act which were last funded in fiscal year 1994. Other unfunded 
programs for which the Secretary intends to eliminate regulations are 
the Bilingual Vocational Training Program (34 CFR Part 427) and 
Bilingual Vocational Instructor Training Program (34 CFR Part 428). The 
Secretary does not expect to have additional funding for any of these 
programs prior to the enactment of new legislation that would authorize 
vocational education programs.
    The Secretary is considering removing sections governing 
requirements or procedures provided for in the Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). For example, Sec. 411.23, 
which applies to the Vocational Education Research Program, establishes 
procedures for evaluating unsolicited applications. The Secretary is 
considering removing Sec. 411.23 and following the procedures for 
evaluating unsolicited applications in EDGAR. Using the EDGAR 
procedures would create more uniformity for applicants, particularly 
for those who apply for a number of Department grants.
    Some regulations provide examples that do not impose requirements 
on grantees or applicants and, thus, do not need to exist in 
regulations. For instance, in the Business and Education Standards 
Program, Sec. 421.2(d) provides examples of comparable national 
organizations. Also, Appendix B to Part 403 (State Vocational and 
Applied Technology Education Program) contains examples of methods by 
which a local educational agency can demonstrate its compliance with 
certain comparability requirements. Are examples in the regulations 
such as these useful? Or would streamlined regulations, with examples 
and other information on implementation provided in other easily 
accessible formats, be more desirable?

Examples of Vocational Education Regulations to Review and Improve

    Some regulations governing vocational education programs interpret 
statutory language or add requirements not explicitly required by 
statute. For example, in Sec. 403.31(c), which relates to the State 
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program, the Secretary 
implements the statutory phrase ``appropriate and sufficient notice'' 
as required by section 113(a)(2)(B) of the Perkins Act through a 
regulatory provision that requires notice ``at least 30 days prior to 
the hearings.'' The Secretary is inclined to delete these specific 
regulatory requirements that implement general statutory language and 
that do not affect significantly the operation of the program. The 
Secretary wants to give States greater flexibility to judge whether 
notice is appropriate and sufficient. Is the more specific requirement 
necessary to protect the public? Should the Secretary remove provisions 
such as this one?
    Other regulations that interpret the statute or add requirements 
were thought to be needed to clarify statutory requirements that could 
have been implemented in a wide variety of ways and that were expected 
to affect significantly the operation of the program. The Secretary 
expects to review and improve these sections while maintaining 
appropriate requirements to facilitate program administration. Examples 
of these types of regulations are the following

[[Page 54026]]

provisions regarding the Vocational Education Basic Grant Program (34 
CFR Part 403): Sec. 403.118 which establishes criteria for approving an 
alternative method for determining how a State may distribute funds for 
the Postsecondary and Adult Vocational Education Program; Sec. 403.184 
which establishes procedures for seeking a waiver of the maintenance-
of-effort requirement; and Sec. 403.180(c)(3) which explains in detail 
the procedure for meeting the ``hold-harmless'' requirements in section 
102(c) of the Perkins Act. In the State-Administered Tech-Prep 
Education Program (34 CFR Part 406), the Secretary would retain 
Sec. 406.10(d), which interprets and clarifies the statutory 
requirements for applications, and other sections similar to 
Sec. 406.10(d). How can the Secretary improve sections such as these? 
Should the Secretary make any changes to these regulations?

Adult Education Programs

    Programs authorized by the Adult Education Act, Public Law 89-750, 
as amended, support and promote services that assist educationally 
disadvantaged adults in developing basic skills, including furthering 
literacy, achieving certification of high school equivalency, and 
learning English. Through the Adult Education State-Administered Basic 
Grant Program (34 CFR Part 461), the Department assists State efforts 
to provide these services to adults who lack a high school diploma or 
the basic skills to function effectively in the workplace and their 
daily lives. At the national level, the Department funds applied 
research, dissemination, evaluation, technical assistance, and other 
activities that show promise of contributing to the improvement and 
expansion of adult education. In addition to the Adult Education State-
Administered Basic Grant Program, the adult education programs governed 
by regulations in Title 34 of the CFR are:
     State Literacy Resource Centers Program (Part 464)
     National Workplace Literacy Program (Part 472)
     State Program Analysis Assistance and Policy Studies 
Program (Part 477)
     Functional Literacy for State and Local Prisoners Program 
(Part 489)
     Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program (Part 
490)
     Adult Education for the Homeless Program (Part 491)
    In addition to reviewing regulations governing specific adult 
education programs, the Secretary is reviewing and may revise the 
regulations in 34 CFR Part 460, Adult Education--General Provisions, 
which apply to all of the adult education programs.

Examples of Adult Education Regulations to Eliminate

    The Secretary plans to eliminate the regulations described in this 
section because they either merely repeat statutory language or are 
obsolete.
    Under the Adult Education State-Administered Basic Grant Program 
(34 CFR Part 461), Sec. 461.2 merely repeats sections 321 and 331(a) of 
the Adult Education Act regarding which entities are eligible for an 
award; Sec. 461.11 restates sections 342(a)(1)-(2) and (b) of the Adult 
Education Act, which specify what a State educational agency (SEA) must 
do in formulating a State plan; and Sec. 461.40 repeats the statutory 
requirements in sections 323 and 331(c) of the Adult Education Act 
regarding administrative costs. Are there reasons to retain these 
regulations?
    Also, under this program, Sec. 461.3(b)(7) requires that, by July 
25, 1993, each SEA develop and implement indicators of program quality. 
Because this deadline occurred more than three years ago, and because 
SEAs are required by the Adult Education Act to continue using 
indicators of program quality, the Secretary plans to eliminate this 
requirement.

Examples of Adult Education Regulations to Review and Improve

    The Secretary would like input from the public on how to approach 
regulations that both restate statutory language and interpret the 
statute. Examples of regulations that the Secretary is considering 
changing follow in this section of the notice.
    Section 461.10 of the Adult Education State-Administered Basic 
Grant Program describes the documents that a State must submit to 
receive a grant. Many of the requirements included in this provision 
are explicitly required by the statute; other explicit statutory 
requirements are recast in this regulatory provision as assurances that 
a State must provide in its application. This provision also requires 
that applicants assure that they will meet certain requirements not 
explicitly provided for in the statute. Are there reasons not to 
eliminate those portions of the regulation that merely repeat statutory 
language, including the assurances based on statutory requirements? How 
would it affect SEAs if the Department retained only those parts of the 
regulations that set forth requirements beyond those explicitly 
provided for in the statute?
    Section 461.12 is another example of a regulatory provision that 
contains both repetition of statutory language and additional 
requirements not explicitly contained in the statute. This section 
prescribes the required contents of a State plan and an interpretation 
of the statutory ``direct and equitable'' requirement, which the 
Department plans to retain. Is there any reason not to eliminate those 
portions of the regulation that duplicate the statute?
    There are also sections of the regulations that interpret the 
statute or add requirements that are not explicitly required by statute 
and that were thought to be necessary to administer the program more 
effectively. Examples of these types of regulations include the 
following: Sec. 460.4 which defines terms such as ``adult basic 
education'', ``adult secondary education'', and ``State administrative 
costs''; Sec. 461.41(c) which explains what constitutes the non-Federal 
share of expenditures under the State plan; and Secs. 461.42-461.45 
which provide maintenance of effort definitions and procedures, 
including provisions regarding obtaining a waiver of these 
requirements. What changes should the Secretary make to improve 
sections such as these?

Regulations Regarding Fees For Basic Adult Education

    There are several regulations that impose requirements that are not 
explicitly required by the statute that the Secretary is reviewing and 
considering revising.
    One example is Sec. 461.10(b)(7), which requires an SEA to assure 
that adults enrolled in adult basic education and English as a second 
language (ESL) programs will not be charged tuition, fees, or be 
required to purchase any materials that are needed for participation in 
the program. The Adult Education Act does not specify any restrictions 
regarding charging tuition or fees to students in any adult education 
programs. The regulations reflect a longstanding Federal policy to make 
adult basic education and ESL programs available free of charge. 
Historically, the Department has regarded this type of regulation as 
necessary to provide access to education for the many adults who lack 
the funds to pay for a basic education.
    The reason the Secretary has selected the prohibition on fees as an 
example of a regulation that will be reviewed is that some SEAs and 
local providers have asked the Secretary to reconsider the prohibition. 
Because these parties have suggested that some services might be 
reduced unless the prohibition is relaxed or eliminated from the 
regulations, the Secretary would particularly like input from the 
public

[[Page 54027]]

in deciding what changes, if any, should be made to this section. In 
considering whether to revise this section, the Secretary requests that 
commenters address the impact of their proposals on needy students.
    Commenters should be aware that even if the prohibition were 
relaxed or eliminated, certain statutory and regulatory provisions 
would remain in place. For example, the statute would still afford a 
preference to programs that can recruit and serve educationally 
disadvantaged adults in areas in which these adults are highly 
concentrated; prohibit the supplanting of Federal funds by State and 
local funds; and require State maintenance of non-Federal effort. 
Section 76.534 of Title 34 of the CFR would also forbid States to count 
tuition and fees collected from students toward meeting matching, cost 
sharing, or maintenance of effort requirements.
    In considering whether and how to revise the prohibition on 
charging fees for adult basic education and ESL programs, the Secretary 
is particularly interested in comments on one or more of the following 
questions:
     Have States investigated whether other non-Federal funds 
are available to pay for services that might be reduced?
     What fees or other costs would SEAs and local programs 
propose to charge students?
     Could and would States establish a policy to charge fees 
only to those adults who are able to pay?
     Would adults be denied access to educational opportunities 
if they could not pay the necessary fees?
     What effects would fees have on the relationship between 
programs funded under the Adult Education Act and those funded under 
other Federal Acts, such as the Job Training and Partnership Act?
     What effects would fees have on the relationship between 
programs funded under the Adult Education Act and the goals of recent 
welfare reform legislation--the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996?
     Will eliminating this prohibition reduce the number of 
economically and educationally disadvantaged adults participating in 
adult basic education programs?
     If eliminating this provision would create hardship for 
participants, should the Secretary take measures to lessen the impact? 
For example, the Secretary could establish a cap on the amount of fees 
that a State could charge, delay implementation of imposing fees, 
gradually permit the charging of fees, or link fees to the amount of a 
participant's income?

Invitation to Comment:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the 
Department's plans to revise the regulations governing the vocational 
and adult education programs. After considering the comments received 
in response to this advance notice, the Secretary intends to publish 
notices of proposed rulemaking with an opportunity for further public 
comment before eliminating or implementing any amendments to the 
regulations with one exception. For those amendments that the Secretary 
believes are non-controversial, such as the elimination of obsolete 
regulations, the Secretary intends to publish direct final rules, which 
would become effective unless the Department receives any negative 
public comment.
    Comments will be available for public inspection, during and after 
the comment period, in Room 4090, Switzer Building, 330 C Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Dated: October 10, 1996.
Patricia W. McNeil,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 96-26413 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P