10398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

§ 75.200(b)(3) regarding what selection

criteria the Secretary could use in

evaluating applications for new grants.

The Secretary further determined that

§ 75.200(b)(3)(iii) and § 75.210(a) (as

numbered in the NPRM) were

redundant.

Changes: The Secretary revises

§ 75.200(b)(3) to clarify the selection

criteria the Secretary may use in

evaluating applications for new grants

and removes redundant language from

§ 75.210.

New Approach to Allocating Points or

Weights (§ 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 (§ 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

§ 75.210(b)(2)(xv) (as renumbered) was

overly restrictive and that the meaning

of § 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

§ 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

(§ 75.210(a), as renumbered) and

significance criterion (§ 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

§§ 75.210(b)(2)(ii)(xv) (as renumbered)

and 388.20(a)(2)(iii) should be revised.

Changes: The Secretary changes and

clarifies §§ 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 (§ 75.201 and

§ 75.210)

Comments: None.

Discussion: In reviewing the proposed

regulations, the Secretary determined
10400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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

(§ 75.210 (d)(2) and (e)(2), as

renumbered) if the applicable selection

criterion is chosen.

Changes: The Secretary amends the

language in § 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 § 75.210 to clarify that

factors § 75.210 (d)(2) and (e)(2) (as

renumbered) are mandatory factors that

are always considered if selection

criteria § 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 partnership and a strengthened federalism by

relying on processes developed by State

and local governments for coordination

and review of proposed Federal

financial assistance.

In accordance with the order, this

document is intended to provide early

notification of the Department’s specific

plans and actions for these programs.

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

§ 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

§ 75.209.

(ii) Selection criteria in programspecific regulations.

(iii) Selection criteria established

under § 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:

§ 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)

§ 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:

§ 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
10402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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-todate 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 75.211 is added to read as

follows:

§ 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:

§ 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))

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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:
10404 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 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))

§ 369.31 [Removed]

17. Section 369.31 is removed.

§ 369.32 [Amended]

18. Section 369.32 is amended by

removing ‘‘listed in § 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’’.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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:

§ 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))

§§ 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:

§ 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:

§ 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))

§ 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:

§ 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))

§ 385.32 [Removed]

36. Section 385.32 is removed.

§ 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 LONGTERM 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:

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

§ 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:

§ 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:

§ 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 StateFederal 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))
10406 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

PART 390—REHABILITATION SHORTTERM 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:

§ 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:

§ 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

§ 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:

§ 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))

§ 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