[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