[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10398-10406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5242]


      

[[Page 10397]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



34 CFR Part 75, et al.



Direct Grant Programs; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 10398]]



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, and 630

RIN 1880-AA74


Direct Grant Programs

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) that govern discretionary grant 
programs administered directly by the Department. These amendments 
reduce the need for specific regulations governing individual programs 
while ensuring that proposed projects meet the highest standards of 
professional excellence. These amendments establish new selection 
criteria and make additional changes to allow these new selection 
criteria to be used in a variety of circumstances. Also, these 
amendments would remove a number of regulations made unnecessary by the 
amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect April 7, 1997, except the 
removal of 34 CFR Part 630 which takes effect on October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of 
Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 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: On July 16, 1996, the Secretary published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for these amendments in the 
Federal Register (61 FR 37184).
    The NPRM explained why the Department developed a new approach to 
EDGAR selection criteria and how the Department would use the new 
criteria. Also, the NPRM discussed other changes the Secretary believes 
are necessary to permit full use of the flexibility available through 
the new approach to EDGAR selection criteria. For a more detailed 
discussion of the major issues concerning these amendments, see pages 
37184-37186 of the NPRM.
    These final regulations contain one significant change from the 
NPRM and this change is fully explained in the Analysis of Comments and 
Changes elsewhere in this preamble. The other changes are minor 
editorial and technical revisions. Some of these revisions required 
that certain sections be renumbered or relettered, and, unless 
otherwise noted, references to these sections elsewhere in this 
preamble use the new numbers and letters, as appropriate.
    Potential applicants are reminded that selection criteria, 
including any specific factors under those criteria, for a particular 
program will be announced in the application package or in a notice 
published in the Federal Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation to comment in the NPRM, 
fewer than 10 parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. 
An analysis follows of the comments and of the changes in the 
regulations since publication of the NPRM.
    Major issues are grouped according to subject, with appropriate 
sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses. Technical and 
other minor changes--and suggested changes that the Secretary is not 
legally authorized to make under the applicable statutory authority or 
are outside the scope of the NPRM--generally are not addressed.

New Approach to Selection Criteria (Sec. 75.200 and Sec. 75.210)

    Comment: The majority of commenters favored the changes to EDGAR 
and the Department's efforts to improve the general selection criteria. 
Some commenters praised specific additions and others lauded generally 
the new approach to tailoring selection criteria for each particular 
competition. These commenters agreed that the new approach would result 
in improvements in the grant application and evaluation process.
    There were two commenters, however, who disagreed with the proposed 
menu approach to selection criteria. These commenters criticized the 
approach because the public would not be afforded the opportunity to 
comment formally on the Department's choice of selection criteria for a 
particular competition. These commenters believed that the public's 
opportunity to comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 would 
be inadequate. Also, they were concerned that the new menu approach 
could lead to arbitrary decision-making by the Department's program 
managers or that the Secretary would use the new flexibility to 
supersede statutory provisions or program-specific regulations.
    Moreover, these two commenters believed that the new approach would 
result in lower quality applications and projects. They objected to the 
approach on the grounds that, without a set of permanently established 
criteria, applicants could not begin to prepare applications in advance 
of the announcement of a competition. They also believed the general 
menu of selection criteria would not provide enough program-specific 
information for an applicant to prepare a quality application. Finally, 
they believed that the new approach would favor large applicant 
organizations with a general mission able to engage in general 
activities.
    Discussion: The Department believes that potential grant applicants 
will have an adequate opportunity to comment on its choice of selection 
criteria for a particular program under the procedures required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Comments submitted under the PRA will be 
reviewed not only by the Department, but also by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), and they will be given careful 
consideration. Moreover, the Department welcomes comments and 
suggestions on selection criteria, and the application process 
generally, apart from the specific requirements of the PRA and formal 
opportunity to comment. Potential applicants, grantees, program 
beneficiaries, and others are encouraged to advise the program about 
their experience with the selection criteria, and to provide 
recommendations for criteria for future competitions at any time, for 
the program office's use in designing selection criteria.
    Fears that the new approach will allow the Secretary to supersede 
statutory provisions or program-specific regulations are misplaced. The 
Secretary is bound by statutory provisions. In evaluating applications, 
the Department must adhere to selection criteria or other provisions 
related to the evaluation of applications required by statute. In 
addition, the Department intends that programs will use the new 
approach in conjunction with the statute and program-specific 
regulations, not instead of them.
    Rather than leading to arbitrary decision-making, the new approach 
should lead to better focused and higher quality decision-making. 
Because the current EDGAR selection criteria are so general, the 
Department sometimes has difficulty distinguishing those projects that 
will best address statutory purposes and Departmental priorities from 
those that merely will address them. On the other hand, program-
specific criteria

[[Page 10399]]

have often proved too narrow and inflexible. By using the new approach, 
the Department will be able to tailor the selection criteria to favor 
projects that best address the purposes of the statute and any 
priorities the Department may establish.
    The Secretary believes that the new approach will lead to the 
selection of higher quality projects and will not favor large applicant 
organizations. The selection criteria are more focused on important 
project attributes than the existing EDGAR general selection criteria. 
The Secretary believes that, if considered in the context of a specific 
program and in conjunction with any applicable statutory provisions and 
program regulations, the selection criteria will be clear and will give 
an applicant enough direction to prepare a quality application. 
Therefore, the Secretary believes that large applicant organizations 
that can carry out general activities will not have an advantage. 
Application reviewers using the focused selection criteria in 
conjunction with applicable statutory provisions and regulations will 
evaluate whether these large organizations can carry out the kind of 
high quality activities that best address the specific purposes and 
priorities of the statute and the Department.
    The Secretary does not believe that the new approach will prevent 
potential applicants from beginning to prepare applications in advance 
of an application announcement. Applicants may begin work on the basis 
of statutory purposes and requirements. In addition, it is unlikely 
that the selection criteria used in evaluating applications will change 
from one year to the next for most programs.
    Additionally, in reviewing the proposed regulations, the Secretary 
determined that it would be helpful to make some minor clarifications 
to Sec. 75.200(b)(3) regarding what selection criteria the Secretary 
could use in evaluating applications for new grants. The Secretary 
further determined that Sec. 75.200(b)(3)(iii) and Sec. 75.210(a) (as 
numbered in the NPRM) were redundant.
    Changes: The Secretary revises Sec. 75.200(b)(3) to clarify the 
selection criteria the Secretary may use in evaluating applications for 
new grants and removes redundant language from Sec. 75.210.

New Approach to Allocating Points or Weights (Sec. 75.201)

    Comment: The commenters who did not support the new menu approach 
to selection criteria also did not support the approach of assigning 
points or weights to criteria on a competition by competition basis. 
These commenters did not give any reasons in addition to those already 
given for their opposition to the new menu approach to selection 
criteria.
    The commenters in support of the entire approach also did not give 
any specific reasons for their support of the flexible allocation of 
points and weights.
    One commenter, however, specifically recommended against limiting 
the number or percentage of points that could be assigned to any 
particular criterion or factor. This commenter thought that point 
weighting should be flexible to address the priorities of a particular 
grant program.
    Discussion: These amendments add only the flexibility of 
distributing weights among criteria and factors. The Secretary 
previously amended the EDGAR regulations to allow for the flexible 
allocation of points and for establishing a total maximum score on a 
competition by competition basis (see 60 FR 63872, December 12, 1995, 
Direct Grant Programs). In promulgating that rule, the Secretary did 
not receive any negative comments regarding points. Some programs used 
the authority for flexible point allocation and total maximum score and 
did not receive negative comments. The Secretary believes this 
flexibility should continue.
    Changes: None.

Similar or Overlapping Criteria and Factors (Sec. 75.210)

    Comments: A few commenters stated that particular criteria were 
redundant, overlap, or may only have subtle differences. Some of those 
commenters thought the criteria and factors should be organized 
differently. Commenters made suggestions for rewording various factors.
    Commenters also pointed out factors that were unclear or could be 
improved. Commenters stated that Sec. 75.210(b)(2)(xv) (as renumbered) 
was overly restrictive and that the meaning of Sec. 388.20(a)(2)(iii) 
was unclear.
    Discussion: The Secretary has reworded and reorganized the criteria 
to focus on an evaluation of the project to be implemented and of key 
attributes of the project, rather than on an evaluation of how well the 
application is written.
    Although the entire menu of criteria and factors may seem to 
overlap or contain factors with only subtle differences, the Department 
will not use all of the criteria and factors at one time. For example, 
one commenter thought factors (xiv), (xv), and (xvi) of 
Sec. 75.210(b)(2)(as renumbered) were redundant and that factor (xvi) 
should suffice. Although factor (xvi) does encompass factors (xiv) and 
(xv), the Department would expect only one of these factors to be used 
in a set of selection criteria for a particular competition. The 
Secretary believes (xiv) and (xv) are needed to emphasize certain 
priorities in different program areas. Also, the need criterion 
(Sec. 75.210(a), as renumbered) and significance criterion 
(Sec. 75.210(b), as renumbered) are similar, but the need criterion is 
better suited to programs that provide services, and the significance 
criterion to programs that carry out demonstration projects. In a small 
number of cases, both criteria may apply.
    The Secretary agrees that Secs. 75.210(b)(2)(ii)(xv) (as 
renumbered) and 388.20(a)(2)(iii) should be revised.
    Changes: The Secretary changes and clarifies 
Secs. 75.210(b)(2)(ii)(xv) and 388.20(a)(2)(iii).

34 CFR Parts 637, 658, 660, 661, and 669

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In the NPRM, the Secretary proposed to remove the 
selection criteria from 34 CFR parts 637 (Minority Science Improvement 
Program), 658 (Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 
Program), 660 (The International Research and Studies Program), 661 
(Business and International Education Program), and 669 (Language 
Resource Centers Program). The Secretary proposed instead that these 
programs would use the new EDGAR menu of selection criteria to evaluate 
applications. Also, the Secretary proposed to make corresponding 
changes in other sections of these parts to reflect the use of the 
EDGAR selection criteria.
    The Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 
the Federal Register proposing that parts 637, 661, and 669 should be 
removed completely and that additional sections in parts 658 and 660 
should be eliminated. (61 FR 52399, October 7, 1996). The Secretary 
currently is reviewing the public comments on that NPRM. Therefore, the 
Secretary has not included changes to parts 637, 658, 660, 661 and 669 
in these final regulations.
    Changes: The Secretary is removing all references to changes to 34 
CFR parts 637, 658, 660, 661, and 669.

Clarifications Regarding Using the Selection Criteria (Sec. 75.201 and 
Sec. 75.210)

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In reviewing the proposed regulations, the Secretary 
determined

[[Page 10400]]

that it would be helpful to make some minor clarifications regarding 
the use of the selection criteria. The Secretary believes it is 
necessary to note in the regulations that the Secretary informs 
applicants of the selection criteria chosen and the factors selected 
for considering the selection criteria, if any, in the application 
package or a notice published in the Federal Register. This information 
was included in the preamble to the NPRM, but not in the regulations.
    The Secretary also believes it would be helpful to clarify in the 
regulations that certain factors are mandatory (Sec. 75.210 (d)(2) and 
(e)(2), as renumbered) if the applicable selection criterion is chosen.
    Changes: The Secretary amends the language in Sec. 75.201 to add a 
new paragraph specifying that the Secretary informs applicants of the 
selection criteria chosen and the factors selected for considering the 
selection criteria, if any, in the application package or a notice 
published in the Federal Register. Also, the Secretary amends the 
language in Sec. 75.210 to clarify that factors Sec. 75.210 (d)(2) and 
(e)(2) (as renumbered) are mandatory factors that are always considered 
if selection criteria Sec. 75.210 (d) and (e) are chosen.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 
OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the 
collection of information in these final regulations is displayed at 
the end of the affected section of the regulations.

Intergovernmental Review

    Many programs 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 partner-ship 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.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary requested 
comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission 
of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other 
agency or authority of the United States.
    Based on the response to the proposed rules and on its own review, 
the Department has determined that the regulations in this document do 
not 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, 
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.

    Dated: February 26, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.)
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
    In accordance with general rulemaking authority under 20 U.S.C. 
3474 adn 1221e-3, The Secretary amends Parts 75, 206, 231, 235, 369, 
371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 380, 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 396, 
610, 612, and 630 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

[[Page 10401]]

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) 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) To evaluate the applications for new grants under the program 
the Secretary may use:
    (i) Selection criteria established under Sec. 75.209.
    (ii) Selection criteria in program-specific regulations.
    (iii) Selection criteria established under Sec. 75.210.
    (iv) Any combination of criteria from paragraphs (b)(3)(i), 
(b)(3)(ii), and (b)(3)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    3. Section 75.201 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 75.201  How the selection criteria will be used.

    (a) In the application package or a notice published in the Federal 
Register, the Secretary informs applicants of--
    (1) The selection criteria chosen; and
    (2) The factors selected for considering the selection criteria, if 
any.
    (b) 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.
    (c) 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, the'' 
and by adding, instead, ``The''.
    5. Section 75.210 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 75.210  General selection criteria.

    In determining the selection criteria to be used in each grant 
competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following 
criteria and may select from among the list of optional factors under 
each criterion. However, paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(2) of this section 
are mandatory factors under their respective criteria:
    (a) Need for project. (1) The Secretary considers the need for the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the 
proposed project.
    (ii) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or 
the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project will provide 
services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of 
educational failure.
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving 
or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals.
    (v) 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.
    (vi) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare 
personnel for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated.
    (b) Significance. (1) The Secretary considers the significance of 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The national significance of the proposed project.
    (ii) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by 
the proposed project.
    (iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, 
or effective strategies.
    (iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
increased knowledge or understanding of rehabilitation problems, 
issues, or effective strategies.
    (v) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system 
change or improvement.
    (vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the 
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the 
field of study.
    (vii) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results 
of the proposed project.
    (viii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield 
findings that may be utilized by other appropriate agencies and 
organizations.
    (ix) 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.
    (x) 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.
    (xi) 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.
    (xii) 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.
    (xiii) The potential replicability of the proposed project or 
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation 
in a variety of settings.
    (xiv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in 
teaching and student achievement.
    (xv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in 
employment, independent living services, or both, as appropriate.
    (xvi) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project.
    (c) Quality of the project design. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the design of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework 
underlying the

[[Page 10402]]

proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that 
framework.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a 
coherent, sustained program of training in the field.
    (vi) 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.
    (vii) 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, if appropriate.
    (viii) 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.
    (ix) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and 
procedures for documenting project activities and results.
    (x) 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.
    (xi) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include 
adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of 
products.
    (xii) 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.
    (xiii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
    (xiv) The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.
    (xv) The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the 
competition.
    (xvi) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated 
with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community, 
State, and Federal resources.
    (xvii) The extent to which the proposed project will establish 
linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing 
services to the target population.
    (xviii) 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.
    (xix) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental 
involvement.
    (xx) The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer 
involvement.
    (xxi) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous 
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
    (xxii) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the 
proposed project.
    (xxiii) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project 
participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.
    (d) Quality of project services. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
    (2) 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.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) The extent to which entities that are to be served by the 
proposed technical assistance project demonstrate support for the 
project.
    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and 
effective practice.
    (iv) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the 
proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
    (v) 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.
    (vi) 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.
    (vii) 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.
    (viii) 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.
    (ix) 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.
    (x) 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.
    (xi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project are focused on those with greatest needs.
    (xii) The quality of plans for providing an opportunity for 
participation in the proposed project of students enrolled in private 
schools.
    (e) Quality of project personnel. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
    (2) 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.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director or principal investigator.
    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of key project personnel.
    (iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    (f) Adequacy of resources. (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy 
of resources for the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed 
project, the

[[Page 10403]]

Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization.
    (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
    (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the 
proposed project.
    (iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed 
project.
    (v) 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.
    (vi) The potential for continued support of the project after 
Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated 
commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
    (vii) 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.
    (g) Quality of the management plan. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following 
factors:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and 
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) 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.
    (h) Quality of the project evaluation. (1) The Secretary considers 
the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project.
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate 
to the context within which the project operates.
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
timely guidance for quality assurance.
    (vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes.
    (vii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance 
about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other 
settings.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1875-0102)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

    6. A new Sec. 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--[REMOVED]

    10. Part 231 is removed.

PART 235--[REMOVED]

    11. Part 235 is removed.

PART 369--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROJECTS

    12. The authority citation for Part 369 is revised 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:

[[Page 10404]]

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--[REMOVED]

    22. Part 373 is removed.

PART 375--[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--[REMOVED]

    26. Part 378 is removed.

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 amended 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

[[Page 10405]]

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 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 criterion is 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 in-service training methods and materials that 
will improve the effectiveness of services to individuals with 
disabilities assisted under the Rehabilitation Act and 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.
    (b) [Reserved.]

(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 criterion is 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.
    (6) [Reserved.]

(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c))

[[Page 10406]]

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 criterion is 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.
    (b) [Reserved.]

(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:


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--[REMOVED]

    52. Part 610 is removed.

PART 612--[REMOVED]

    53. Part 612 is removed.

PART 630--[REMOVED]

    54. Part 630 is removed, effective October 1, 1997.
[FR Doc. 97-5242 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P