[Federal Register: April 17, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20697-20704]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ap00-33]
[[Page 20697]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 75
Direct Grant Programs; Proposed Rule
[[Page 20698]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 75
RIN 1880-AA02
Direct Grant Programs
AGENCY: Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) that govern discretionary
grant programs. These proposed amendments would implement new options
for the Department of Education's (Department's) application review
process for discretionary grants. These changes are intended to improve
the quality of the review process, provide additional flexibility, and
provide greater opportunities for inexperienced, ``novice applicants''
to receive funding.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 1, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed regulations to
Valerie A. Sinkovits, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW., room 3652, ROB-3, Washington, DC 20202-4248. If you prefer to send
your comments through the Internet use the following address:
comments@ed.gov
You must include the term ``Redesign'' in the subject line of your
electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Sinkovits. Telephone: (202)
708-7568. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-
8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Invitation to Comment
We invite you to submit comments and recommendations regarding
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the programs
affected by these regulations.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations in room 3652, Regional Office
Building 3, Seventh and D Streets, S.W., Washington, DC, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday
of each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, you may call (202) 205-
8113 or (202) 260-9895. If you use a TDD, you may call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
II. Background of the Department's Redesign of the Discretionary
Grants Process
The Secretary takes this action to implement several
recommendations made by a Department discretionary grants reengineering
team (team). In January of 1995, the Department's Reinvention
Coordinating Council (RCC), chaired by the Deputy Secretary of
Education, chartered a team of Department staff to redesign the
discretionary grants process, including the application review process,
to increase customer satisfaction and to ensure the best use of the
Department's resources. The team was comprised of staff members from
across the Department who had a wealth of knowledge of, and experience
with, the Department's discretionary grants process and programs.
Current and former Department grant recipients, as well as unsuccessful
applicants, provided helpful comments, suggestions, and recommendations
to the team for improving the discretionary grants process. The team
received input from a variety of organizations, including institutions
of higher education, State educational agencies, local educational
agencies, and nonprofit organizations. In addition, numerous Department
staff who are involved in all phases of the discretionary grants
process, from appropriations through grant close-out, provided input
and recommendations on ways to improve the grants process. Furthermore,
the team researched the discretionary grants processes of other Federal
agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the National
Institutes of Health.
The team presented its preliminary design for the new discretionary
grants process in May of 1995 at a design review conference for
Department staff and customers. Based on participant recommendations
and comments, the team made changes and refinements to the design. In
December of 1995, the final design was approved for implementation by
the Department's Executive Management Committee. Pilot tests of various
aspects of the new process were conducted during fiscal year 1996 by
several departmental program offices, and additional refinements were
made based on the results of an external evaluation. The Department
began to implement the approved redesigned discretionary grants process
on October 1, 1996. Some of the most noticeable changes implemented
since 1996 include: eliminating the Department's centralized grants
office and forming discretionary grant teams in the Department's
program offices that provide ``one-stop shopping'' for both grants
administration and programmatic information; eliminating unnecessary
and time-consuming processes such as grant negotiations prior to award;
and establishing partnerships with Department grantees to ensure
successful project outcomes.
III. The Team's Findings
Although the team gathered data on all phases of the Department's
discretionary grants process, the majority of comments and suggestions
from customers and staff alike focused on the review of grant
applications--a crucial activity that plays a major role in determining
which applicants will be funded.
A. Review Procedures
The team's analysis of the Department's current application review
process showed that the same basic review procedures are generally used
for all program competitions, regardless of the number of applications
received, the average amount of the awards, or the nature of the
program. Both staff and customers questioned whether it was cost-
effective and efficient for the Department to employ the same review
[[Page 20699]]
procedures for the smallest grants as it does for the largest, most
complex grants.
Perhaps more importantly, they questioned whether using the same
standard review procedures for each of the Department's highly diverse
programs would ultimately result in the selection of the best projects
that would meet unique program goals.
The team determined that the two most common elements of the
Department's application review process are: (1) using numerical scores
to rate applications and (2) using primarily ``outside reviewers'' to
review applications; that is, experts who are not employees of the
Federal Government.
1. Numerical Scores
Under current practice, the Department establishes the maximum
numerical score that an application may receive under a set of
selection criteria for a competition. The Department then selects
panels of reviewers to rate the applications under these selection
criteria. Each member of a peer review panel rates applications by
assigning numerical scores under the selection criteria. The scores of
individual panel members are typically averaged together or, in some
cases, added together by Department staff to produce a panel score for
each application. Based on the panel scores, Department staff prepare
rank order lists of the applications to assist in making funding
determinations
Some departmental program offices also use a statistical
standardization process that adjusts the scores of each reviewer to
eliminate biases that result from the scoring preferences of certain
reviewers. For example, some reviewers may consistently score all
assigned applications higher or lower than other reviewers.
Because often there are so many highly qualified applications that
score very close together, the Department may need to calculate scores
to one-tenth or even one one-hundredth of a point to determine the rank
order. For example, due to limited program funds, the Department might
be able to fund an application scoring 97.2. However, an application
scoring 97.1, only one-tenth of a point less, may not be funded.
2. Peer Reviewers
Both Department staff and customers placed great importance on the
qualifications of the peer reviewers. Customers indicated that they
expected a review process that assured a fair and high quality
application review by trained reviewers with appropriate backgrounds
and subject matter expertise.
Department staff stressed the importance of using high-quality
reviewers, but also indicated significant challenges in engaging
``outside'' reviewers. Often, qualified, prospective reviewers have
numerous professional commitments that preclude their participation in
the Department's review process. Further, for certain program specialty
areas, the pool of qualified experts to draw from is limited and the
experts' time and services are in high demand.
B. Inexperienced Applicants
Many unsuccessful applicants, as well as grantees who had received
a grant only after submitting numerous unsuccessful applications,
expressed frustrations and concerns about the difficulty that
inexperienced applicants have in obtaining Department discretionary
grant funding. These customers felt that there was not always a ``level
playing field'' among applicants competing for grants. They noted
several factors inhibiting success, including the lack of
organizational resources to hire professional grant writers with a
proven track record for producing winning proposals, and the lack of
resources to establish institutional grant or sponsored research
offices with the mission of securing grant funding.
C. Building Better Projects
Although the primary goal of the application review process is to
identify high quality projects that are worthy of funding, customers
indicated that they expected additional benefits from the Department's
review process. Numerous customers stated that thoughtful, substantive
reviewers' comments identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the
proposed project were critical to both the successful applicant and the
unsuccessful applicant.
Successful applicants felt that receiving substantive reviewers'
comments prior to the start of their grant was an especially timely and
helpful tool for improving an already high-quality project.
Unsuccessful applicants felt that reviewers' comments identifying
weaknesses in their proposed project and suggestions for improvement
would help them strengthen their proposals for the next competition.
Both successful and unsuccessful applicants saw constructive reviewers'
comments as a form of technical assistance that should be an integral
part of the review process.
IV. Goals for the Redesigned Application Review Process
In redesigning the discretionary grants process, particularly the
application review process, the team had several goals:
* Given the range and diversity of the Department's
discretionary grant programs, program offices should have the
flexibility to employ procedures for reviewing and selecting grants
that most closely meet their individual program needs and result in the
selection of quality projects and the timely award of grants.
* Regardless of the application review procedures the
Department uses for a particular program, the Department must ensure
that, in all cases, trained and qualified reviewers, with appropriate
backgrounds and expertise, conduct a high quality review.
* The entire discretionary grants process must be fair,
efficient, cost-effective, and result in the issuance of grant awards
when the customers need them.
V. The Redesigned Application Review Process
The redesigned application review process increases the options
available for reviewing and selecting grants so that the Department can
better tailor the method used for a competition to meet the needs of
the program. Program offices could continue to use current review and
selection methods, but would be encouraged to examine the
appropriateness of using the new methods for their competitions.
A. Quality Band Ratings
The redesigned application review process presents a new option for
rating applications that focuses on a qualitative description of the
application's merit, rather than a quantitative description (i.e.,
numerical scores). Under the redesigned process, the Department could
request that reviewers group applications of comparable merit into
quality bands, rather than using numerical ratings to score and rank
applications. The reviewers would place applications into one of five
possible groupings or quality bands to denote distinctions in quality
among the applications. Quality bands would range from highest to
lowest quality (i.e., ``Excellent,'' ``Very Good,'' ``Good,'' ``Fair''
and ``Unacceptable'').
Under the quality band system of rating applications, all of the
applications that place in a particular quality band would be
considered comparable in quality, and therefore, the Department could
support funding
[[Page 20700]]
any of the applications in a fundable quality band.
In any competition using quality bands, the Department would rely
heavily on the professional judgement of the reviewers in the rating of
applications. The individual reviewers would be instructed to provide
strong written justifications for the quality band rating assigned to
each application, and include comments that identify the strengths and
weaknesses of the application. In addition to justifying the ratings
that a reviewer has given to an application, constructive narrative
reviewers' comments provide critical technical assistance that can help
successful applicants improve and refine their projects and will help
unsuccessful applicants improve the quality of their proposals for the
next competition. Peer reviewers would receive training by Department
staff prior to the start of the review regarding how to provide
constructive comments that are integral to the quality band rating
system.
The Department would first fund all of the applications in the
highest quality band (i.e., the ``Excellent'' band) and then proceed to
fund all of the applications in the next band (i.e., the ``Very Good''
band), and so on, until all of the applications in the last band that
merits funding have been funded. If faced with the inability to fund
all of the applications in a particular quality band due to limited
program funds, the Secretary would have discretion in determining which
applications to fund within the band. As recommended by the team, in
exercising that discretion, the Secretary might use a random selection
procedure to select applications from within the band until available
funds were exhausted. Because the Department could commit to funding
any of the applications in that particular quality band, a random
selection procedure is both a feasible and fair way of selecting among
applications in a quality band.
It should be noted that the Department has experience with
qualitative ratings in specific program competitions. Several
Department programs, such as the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
Program and the Field-Initiated Studies Research Grant Program, have
used qualitative rating systems. In reviewing the applications,
reviewers provided written justifications supporting the qualitative
ratings assigned to each application and comments focusing on the
strengths and weaknesses of the applications.
B. Staff Panel Reviews
Another application review option recommended by the team was the
increased use of review panels comprised solely of highly qualified
Department staff. This review option is available currently to
Department programs, but is not widely used.
However, the Department believes that this kind of review process
might be appropriate for programs in which the awards issued were of a
relatively small size or in which a high percentage of the applications
under the program would ultimately be funded. Further, in competitions
involving a multiple tier review process, in which two or three review
panels or tiers evaluate applications, Department staff might be used
by program offices to participate in one of the initial tiers of review
to help determine which applications should be forwarded to the next
tier for further consideration.
The team noted the following beneficial aspects of using an
internal review and evaluation process for certain program
competitions: (1) A high quality review is conducted by ``in-house''
Department experts, with appropriate backgrounds and subject matter
expertise, who are familiar with the laws, regulations, and policies
affecting the program and (2) the review process is more cost-effective
and efficient, as the need to conduct application reviews off-site is
reduced or eliminated, and the fiscal and logistical considerations of
recruiting, selecting, and engaging non-Federal readers is reduced, or,
in some cases, eliminated.
C. Novice Applicants
In order to address customer concerns about the difficulties that
inexperienced applicants face in getting discretionary grant funding
from the Department, the team recommended that, if legally permissible
and consistent with the intent and purpose of the program, Department
program offices could set aside funds to be awarded to novice
applicants. The team suggested a streamlined application process for
novice applicants, consisting of a brief application, submitted by the
applicants for a smaller than average grant under the program; review
and evaluation by Department staff members to establish that the
applications are of sufficient quality to merit funding; use of a
random selection process when the Department does not have sufficient
funds to fund all of the qualified novice applications; and closer
monitoring and technical assistance after award for novice grantees.
To meet individual program needs, program offices might use other
review and selection procedures to assist novice applicants in
obtaining funding. For example, instead of conducting a separate
competition for novice applicants, a program office might hold only one
competition open to all eligible applicants, including novice
applicants. Under a competitive preference for a program competition
using numerical scores, a novice applicant could receive a certain
number of additional points based on its status as a novice. Likewise,
in a program competition using quality bands, the Secretary could take
into consideration the applicants' ``novice'' status in making funding
decisions. For example, if all of the applications in a quality band
could not be funded due to limited program funds, the Secretary could
fund all, or a certain percentage of the novice applications in that
band before funding other applications in that band.
In all cases, novice grantees would be required to follow the same
regulations and requirements as other grantees under the program, and,
as mentioned earlier, more stringent conditions might be imposed, if
needed, on novice grantees, such as more frequent monitoring by the
Department.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Proposed Regulations
A. Section 75.105 Annual Priorities
This section would be amended to reflect the use of annual
priorities in competitions that use quality bands to evaluate
applications. Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section,
when selecting applications in quality bands, the Secretary may
consider the extent to which or how well the application meets the
priority in selecting applications for funding.
The following hypothetical example illustrates how this would work.
The Secretary publishes an application notice for a competition under
the ABC School Technology Program, telling applicants that the
Secretary will use quality bands to evaluate applications. The notice
also states that the Secretary will give competitive preference to
applications under this competition based on the extent to which or how
well an application meets the following priority: significant
involvement by members of the business community in the design and
implementation of the project. In response to the application notice,
the Secretary receives many applications under the ABC School
Technology Program. The Secretary has sufficient funds to select all of
the applications in the ``Excellent'' band,
[[Page 20701]]
but only has sufficient funds to select 10 of the 30 applications in
the ``Very Good'' band. Twelve of the 30 applications in the ``Very
Good'' band address the priority.
In deciding which 10 applications to fund, the Secretary may
consider the extent to which or how well the 12 applications address
the priority. The Secretary may conclude, after reviewing the
applications and the peer reviewers' comments, that eight of the 12
applications extensively address the priority and provide detailed
information about how the applicant would implement the priority. The
Secretary would select the 8 applicants that effectively addressed the
priority, before funding other applications.
The Secretary would document how the Secretary made the decision as
to which of the eight applications addressed the priority effectively
such that they deserved to be selected over other applications and
would include that documentation in the file for each application that
addressed the priority.
The four applications that did not address the priority effectively
enough to be given priority selection would be treated as equal to the
18 remaining applications that did not address the priority at all. The
Secretary would then select the final two applications from the
remaining 22 applications. The Secretary either could use random
selection, or could rely on information regarding the selection
criteria or other requirements relevant to the selection of
applications in making the final selection, regardless of whether the
applications addressed the priority.
A. Section 75.201 How the Selection Criteria Will Be Used.
This section would be amended to state that the application package
or notice published in the Federal Register provided to applicants
includes certain information for competitions that use quality bands to
evaluate applications.
B. Section 75.209 Selection Criteria Based on Statutory Provisions
This section would be amended to reflect how the Secretary would
use statutory criteria, along with other criteria established by the
Department, in competitions that use quality bands to evaluate
applications.
C. Section 75.217 How Does the Secretary Select Applications for
Grants?
Paragraph (c) of this section would be revised to reflect the use
of quality bands to evaluate applications. Under proposed paragraph
(d), the Secretary would continue to make the final decision as to
which applications to fund, whether the Secretary used rank ordering or
quality bands. The proposed regulations would continue the Secretary's
authority to determine which applications to fund after considering the
information in the application, and the quality of the application, as
determined under paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (d) would also
retain the provision that the Secretary could consider more information
than was available to reviewers to make sure that all factors were
properly weighed in the selection process. For example, a group of
reviewers might rank an application very high. However, the Secretary
might have information about the applicant's unsatisfactory past
performance under prior Department grants (e.g., improper use of funds
or failure to achieve its approved project goals and objectives). The
Secretary could consider this information under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)
and decide not to fund the application.
A new paragraph (e) would be added to reflect the Secretary's
ability to refuse consideration of applications that do not meet a
minimum cut-off score or minimum quality band rating. The Secretary
would have flexibility in deciding whether the cut-off score or quality
band rating should be established in the application notice for the
competition or after determining the overall quality of applications
submitted under a competition.
D. Section 75.223 What Procedures Apply When the Secretary Uses
Quality Bands to Evaluate Applications?
A new section 75.223 would be added to describe the procedures the
Secretary would use under competitions that use quality bands to
evaluate applications. These proposed regulations would permit
reviewers to group applications under the following five quality bands:
``Excellent,'' ``Very Good,'' ``Good,'' ``Fair,'' and ``Unacceptable.''
Under proposed Sec. 75.223(b), the Secretary would not fund any
application placed in the ``Unacceptable'' band.
In cases where the Secretary selected an application for funding
from the ``Fair'' band, the Secretary would maintain, in the grant
file, changes the applicant made to the application showing how the
applicant addressed those aspects of the proposed grant that were
lacking. Further, the Secretary could impose additional requirements on
the grant to ensure that those aspects that were lacking in the
original application are implemented properly.
Under proposed paragraph (c) of this section the experts would rate
the applications against the program's selection criteria and then
group applications of comparable merit into the same quality band, so
that there would be no rank order within a quality band.
Proposed paragraph (d) would add a provision outlining what would
happen if the Secretary grouped applications in non-numerical quality
bands and there were more applications within any one quality band
worthy of funding than available funds would allow. In such situations,
the Secretary would use his discretion to select applications and could
select randomly from within the quality band in exercising that
discretion.
Proposed paragraph (d) would also address the possibility that
different members of a panel might put the same application in
different quality bands. In these cases, the Secretary would have to
resolve the conflict, using all available information. For example, if
two reviewers rated an application in the ``Very Good'' and one rated
the application in the ``Excellent'' band, the Secretary might conclude
that the application should be considered with the applications that
were rated in the ``Very Good'' band, as that view predominated in the
consideration of the reviewers. In other cases, the Secretary might
find that one of the reviewers misunderstood portions of the
application and misjudged the application. This might produce a three-
reviewer split, where one member rated the application in the
``Excellent'' band, one member rated the application in the ``Very
Good'' band and the third member rated the application in the
``Unacceptable'' band. If the Secretary determined that the third
reviewer misjudged the application, the Secretary would look at the
ratings of the other two reviewers to decide in which band to rate the
application. This kind of judgement is similar to what happens under
the current system, when the Secretary decides not to fund an
application that was within the funding range because the average of
the scores for an application was unjustifiably high due to a
misreading of the application by one of the reviewers.
The Secretary would direct employees of the Department who act as
competition managers or monitors to point out to reviewers variances in
evaluations so these kinds of conflicts can be resolved in most cases
during the review process. In any case, these issues would be resolved
before the Secretary makes final selection decisions. In no case would
a reviewer be directed to change an evaluation, only to consider
whether the reviewer fully considered all of the information in the
application.
[[Page 20702]]
The Secretary will monitor the development of the Department's use
of quality bands to determine if any further regulatory clarification
is needed to resolve issues that may arise from reviewers placing
applications in different quality bands.
E. Section 75.224 What Are the Procedures for Using a Multiple Tier
Review Process To Evaluate Applications?
Proposed Sec. 75.224 would codify a practice that has evolved in
some program offices of the Department involving the use of more than
one review of an application. This review by more than one group of
reviewers is known as ``multiple tier review.'' A multiple tier review
process might be used by a program office to gain different
perspectives on an application. For example, one panel of researchers
and another panel of practitioners might be asked to review the
applications for a particular program competition. More commonly, a
multiple tier review process is used to narrow the pool of applicants
that will be considered for funding. After the first or second tiers of
the review, only some of the applications are forwarded to the next
tier for further consideration. Under the multiple tier review process,
the Secretary could refuse to consider an application in the second or
third tier of review if it did not meet a minimum score or place in a
certain minimum quality band level in the previous tier's review. The
Secretary could establish the minimum score or quality band either in
the application notice for the competition or after considering the
overall range in the quality of the applications. For example, if a
large number of the applications were rated in the ``Excellent'' and
``Very Good'' bands in the first tier of the review, and funds were
only available to fund a small number of the applications, the
Secretary could decide to eliminate from further review any
applications that rated below the ``Excellent'' band.
When a multiple tier review process is used as a means for
narrowing the pool of applications that will be considered for funding,
it would not be unusual for an application to receive a considerably
different rating in the second or third tier than it did under the
previous tier's review, even from the same reviewers. Although the
reviewers in the second or third tier are still rating applications
under the same selection criteria, the applications are now being
reviewed within the context of a higher quality pool of applications,
which has the potential for affecting the reviewers' rating practices.
For this reason, the Secretary does not believe that these differences
in ratings indicate errors in judgement at the prior tier.
The Secretary would also have discretion under proposed paragraph
(d) to refuse consideration of an application that was rejected by any
one of the groups evaluating the application in the same tier. For
example, in a competition for a major statistical grant, the Secretary
might choose at the first tier to have applications reviewed by a panel
of statisticians and another panel of educators and citizens. If the
statistical panel found the statistical model of an application valid
but the panel of educators and citizens found that the result of the
applicant's analysis would not advance education issues, the Secretary
could refuse to consider that application in the next tier of the
review process.
F. Section 75.225 What Procedures Does the Secretary Use if the
Secretary Decides to Give Special Consideration to Novice Applicants?
Proposed new section 75.225 would be added to respond to the
concerns of some applicants that they could not get a grant from the
Department unless they had already received a grant. Proposed section
75.225 (a) would define novice applicants as applicants that have never
received a grant or a subgrant from the Department program under which
they seek funding, and have not had an active discretionary grant from
the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for
applications under the program.
In cases where an applicant had participated in a group that
received a grant from the Department, such as a consortium or
partnership, but had not acted as the grantee (fiscal agent) under the
regulations for group applications in Secs. 75.127-75.129, the
applicant would not be treated as having had a previous grant under
that program. However, if the applicant had been the grantee for the
group application, then the applicant would be treated as having had a
grant under the program that made the award.
When applying for assistance under a program that would use the
novice application procedures, an applicant that met the definition of
``novice applicant'' and wanted to receive special consideration as a
novice applicant would check a box on the Department's Application for
Federal Education Assistance form (ED 424) to certify that it met all
novice applicant requirements for the funding program.
Under proposed paragraph (c), the Secretary would have discretion
in appropriate circumstances to set up a separate competition for
novice applicants. This novice competition would not be used when the
Department would be funding a highly complicated research project, or
large projects that would require coordination among a group of
organizations. As an example, the Department could set up a novice
competition in which novice applicants compete for small ``seed money''
grants and are required to submit only brief applications addressing
how they meet the selection criteria for the program. The information
about how the novice competition would be managed would appear in the
application notice for the competition.
The Secretary would also have discretion under proposed paragraph
(c) to give special consideration to novice applications as part of a
competition not explicitly restricted to novice applicants. If the
Secretary chose this means of considering novice applications in a
rank-order competition, the Secretary would give a novice application a
certain number of additional points, as stated in the application
notice for the competition, based on its status as a novice. Also, as
mentioned earlier in this preamble, a program office using quality band
ratings could give priority to novice applications by selecting a
certain percentage of, or all, novice applications within a band before
selecting other applications in that band.
Finally, proposed paragraph (d) would authorize the Secretary to
place special conditions on a novice grantee to help ensure that it
successfully completes the project. For example, to facilitate close
monitoring of the grant, the novice grantee might be required to submit
performance reports on a quarterly basis.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1,
1998 on ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to
write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following:
* Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
* Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
* Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
* Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them
[[Page 20703]]
into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the
symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec. 75.217 How
the Secretary selects applications for new grants.)
* Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
* What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these
proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the
ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities affected would be small local educational
agencies, tribal governments, community-based organizations, nonprofit
organizations, and institutions of higher education. The novice
applicant procedures in these regulations would benefit small entities
by giving them a greater opportunity to receive awards from the
Department. The flexibility in these regulations would benefit all
entities, including small entities, by improving customer service and
increasing the quality of the application review process.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed regulations do not contain any information
collection requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
These proposed regulations are not subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However,
many of the programs that these proposed regulations would apply to are
subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any
other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes
available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, D.C.,
area at (202) 512-1530.
Note:
The official version of this document is the document published
in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations
is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/
index.html
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 75
Administrative practice and procedure, Education Department, Grant
programs--education, Grant administration, Incorporation by reference,
Performance reports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Unobligated funds.
Dated: April 12, 2000.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes
to amend part 75 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 75--DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for Part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 75.105 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.105 Annual priorities.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)(A) If the Secretary prepares a rank order of the applications,
the Secretary may assign some or all bonus points to an application
depending upon the extent to which or how well the application meets
the priority. These points are in addition to any points the applicant
earns under the selection criteria (see Sec. 75.200(b)). The
application notice states the maximum number of additional points that
the Secretary may award to an application depending upon the extent to
which or how well the application meets the priority.
(B) If the Secretary selects applications in quality bands, the
Secretary may consider the extent to which or how well the application
meets the priority in selecting applications.
* * * * *
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;
(2) The factors selected for considering the selection criteria, if
any; and
(3) The Secretary's decision whether to prepare a rank order of
applications or group applications in non-numerical quality bands. (See
34 CFR 75.217(c))
(b) If the Secretary prepares a rank order of applications, the
Secretary also informs applicants of--
(1) The total possible score for all of the criteria for a
competition; and
(2) The assigned weight or maximum possible score for each
criterion or factor under that criterion.
(c) If the Secretary prepares a rank order of applications and no
points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria and factors
used for the competition, the Secretary evaluates each selection
criterion equally and within each criterion, each factor equally.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
4. Section 75.209 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows.
Sec. 75.209 Selection criteria based on statutory provisions.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(2)(i) If the Secretary prepares a rank order of applications,
assigning the maximum possible score for each of the criteria
established under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(ii) If the Secretary groups applications in non-numerical quality
bands, the Secretary considers statutory criteria with the other
criteria under Sec. 75.223(c).
* * * * *
5. Section 75.217 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.217 How does the Secretary select applications for new grants?
(a) The Secretary selects applications for new grants on the basis
of the authorizing statute, the selection
[[Page 20704]]
criteria, and any priorities or other requirements that have been
published in the Federal Register and apply to the selection of
applications.
(b)(1) The Secretary may use experts to evaluate the applications
submitted under a competition.
(2) These experts may include individuals who are not employees of
the Federal Government.
(c) Based solely on the evaluation of the quality of the
applications according to the selection criteria, the Secretary
either--
(1) Prepares a rank order of the applications; or
(2) Groups applications into non-numerical quality bands in
accordance with the procedures in Sec. 75.223.
(d) The Secretary determines the order in which applications will
be selected, after considering the following:
(1) The information in each application.
(2) The quality of the applications as determined under
Sec. 75.217(c).
(3) Any other information--
(i) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that
applies to the selection of applications for new grants;
(ii) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under
a previous award under any Department program; and
(iii) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department
program to submit a performance report or its submission of a
performance report of unacceptable quality.
(e)(1) The Secretary may refuse to consider applications that do
not meet a minimum cut-off score or minimum quality band.
(2) The Secretary may establish the minimum cut-off score or
quality band--
(i) In the application notice published in the Federal Register; or
(ii) After reviewing the applications to determine the overall
range in the quality of applications received.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
5. New Secs. 75.223, 75.224 and 74.225 are added to subpart D under
the undersignated center heading ``selection procedures'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.223 What procedures apply when the Secretary uses quality
bands to evaluate applications?
(a) If the Secretary uses quality bands to evaluate applications,
the quality bands are--
(1) Excellent, if the application is outstanding in all respects
and deserves the highest priority for support;
(2) Very good, if the application is of high quality in nearly all
respects and should be supported if at all possible;
(3) Good, if the application is a quality proposal that is worthy
of support;
(4) Fair, if the application is acceptable but lacking in one or
more aspects and there are issues that need to be addressed before it
can be considered for funding;
(5) Unacceptable, if the application has serious deficiencies and
should not be funded.
(b) The Secretary does not fund any application that is placed in
the Unacceptable band.
(c) The experts must assign an overall band rating for each
application, after considering the quality of the application under
each criterion.
(d) If there are more applications within any one quality band than
can be funded with remaining funds, the Secretary decides which
applications to fund based solely on the Secretary's discretion and may
select randomly in exercising that discretion.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474).
Sec. 75.224 What are the procedures for using a multiple tier review
process to evaluate applications?
(a) The Secretary may use a multiple tier review process to
evaluate applications.
(b) The Secretary may refuse to review applications in any tier
that do not meet a minimum cut-off score or minimum quality band
established for the prior tier.
(c) The Secretary may establish the minimum cut-off score or
quality band--
(1) In the application notice published in the Federal Register; or
(2) After reviewing the applications to determine the overall range
in the quality of applications received.
(d) The Secretary may, in any tier--
(1) Use more than one group of experts to gain different
perspectives on an application; and
(2) Refuse to consider an application if the application is
rejected under paragraph (b) of this section by any one of the groups
used in the prior tier.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
Sec. 75.225 What procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary
decides to give special consideration to novice applications?
(a) As used in this section, ``Novice applicant'' means an
applicant for a grant from ED that--
(1) Has never received a grant or subgrant under the program from
which it seeks funding; and
(2) Has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal
Government in the five years before the deadline date for applications
under the program.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a grant
is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period,
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's
authority to obligate funds.
(c) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of
novice applications is appropriate, the Secretary may either--
(1) Establish a separate competition for novice applicants; or
(2) Give competitive preference to novice applicants under the
procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2).
(d) Before making a grant to a novice applicant, the Secretary
imposes special conditions, if necessary, to ensure the grant is
managed effectively and project objectives are achieved.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[FR Doc. 00-9558 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P