Regulatory Reinvention for Vocational and Adult Education Programs

SUMMARY: The Secretary is giving the public early notice of regulatory

actions the Secretary intends to take regarding the vocational and

adult education programs. This notice solicits public input to help

guide the Department in revising and simplifying regulations and

reducing regulatory burden.

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

ADDRESS: Patricia W. McNeil, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and

Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

S.W. (Room 4090, Switzer Building), Washington, D.C. 20202-7100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Weintraub, telephone (202) 205-

5602. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-

877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday

except Federal holidays. Internet: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The President, on March 4, 1995, announced a Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative to reform the Federal regulatory system. The Initiative

requires all Federal agencies to review their regulations page by page

in an effort to eliminate obsolete regulations, improve or reinvent

regulations, revise regulations to reward results rather than process,

and streamline regulations to achieve agency goals in the most

efficient and least intrusive way possible. Since then, the Department

has been thoroughly reviewing all of its regulations pursuant to the

President's instructions.

As directed by the President, in June of 1995 each Federal agency

submitted a plan to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget

describing the actions it planned to take to eliminate or improve

existing regulations. The Secretary committed to the President to

eliminate or reinvent 1,984 pages of regulations, representing 93

percent of the Department's regulations. As of August 31, 1996, the

Department had eliminated or reinvented 1,827 pages (approximately 92%)

of the regulations the Department is committed to changing. These

numbers include proposed significant statutory changes that, if

enacted, would lead to immediate regulatory elimination or reinvention.

Regulatory review and improvement are occurring Departmentwide. The

Department already instituted a number of reforms that have led to

fewer regulations and better decisions about when to regulate. For

example, the Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education

identified regulations that were no longer necessary for 20 programs,

eliminating over 80 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations in May

1995 (see 60 FR 27223, May 23, 1995). Efforts in other offices have

resulted in elimination of paperwork burden, increased flexibility, and

fewer regulatory requirements.

Reinvention of Vocational and Adult Education Programs

Comprehensive legislative reform proposals that would have

significantly changed the existing vocational and adult education

programs were not enacted by the 104th Congress. Because these

proposals were not enacted, the Department plans to move forward on its

normal cycle for reviewing the existing regulations governing these

programs.

General Questions

In an initial review of the remaining regulations governing the

adult and vocational education programs, the Secretary has identified

four broad categories of regulatory provisions:

1. Regulations that merely restate statutory language.

2. Obsolete regulations, i.e., those that govern unfunded programs

or contain provisions that no longer have any meaning or effect.

3. Regulations that both restate statutory language and interpret

the statute.

4. Regulations that impose requirements not explicitly required by

statute. The Secretary plans to eliminate regulations that fall into

the first two categories unless the public gives the Secretary reasons

to retain those types of regulations. The Secretary would like input

from the public in deciding how to treat the regulations in the third

and fourth categories. For regulations in the third and fourth

categories that are determined, at the conclusion of the review

process, to be necessary for effective program administration, the

Secretary would maintain, but review and improve them. Examples of all

these types of regulations and specific questions follow in the

sections describing the vocational and adult education programs.

In addition to the specific questions that follow, the Secretary

requests comments on the following general questions:

Are there reasons why the Department should not eliminate

regulations that simply restate the law? If the Department eliminates

these provisions, would it be helpful to explain statutory requirements

and information currently codified in regulations in a guidebook or

other resource?

Would the changes proposed in this notice have any effects

the Department may not have anticipated?

Would the actions described in this advance notice provide

useful regulatory relief?

Are there other ways the Secretary could reduce costs and

burdens associated with these regulations?

Vocational Education Programs

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education

Act, Public Law 101-392, (Perkins Act) authorizes the Department to

fund vocational programs offered in secondary and postsecondary

schools. Under the State Vocational and Applied Technology Education

Program, the Department makes formula grants to States and Outlying

Areas to expand and improve their programs of vocational education and

provide equal access in vocational education to members of special

populations, such as individuals with disabilities or economically

disadvantaged students. In addition, the national programs authorized

by the Perkins Act support research, demonstration, development, and

dissemination activities, with special emphasis on the integration of

academic and vocational education, and development of business and

education standards designed to improve vocational education across the

country. Emphasis is also given to improving access of populations,

such as American Indians and Native Hawaiians, to quality vocational

education programs.

The vocational education programs governed by regulations in Title

34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are:

Indian Vocational Education Program (Part 401)

Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program (Part 402)

[[Page 54025]]

State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program

(Part 403)

State-Administered Tech-Prep Education Program (Part 406)

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions

Program (Part 410)

Vocational Education Research Program (Part 411)

National Network for Curriculum Coordination in Vocational

and Technical Education (Part 412)

National Center or Centers for Research in Vocational

Education (Part 413)

Demonstration Centers for the Training of Dislocated

Workers Program (Part 415)

Business and Education Standards Program (Part 421)

Demonstration Projects for the Integration of Vocational

and Academic Learning Program (Part 425)

Cooperative Demonstration Program (Part 426)

Bilingual Vocational Training Program (Part 427)

Bilingual Vocational Instructor Training Program (Part

428)

Bilingual Vocational Materials, Methods, and Techniques

Program (Part 429)

In addition to reviewing regulations governing specific vocational

education programs, the Secretary is reviewing and may revise the

regulations in 34 CFR Part 400, Vocational and Applied Technology

Education Programs--General Provisions, which apply to all of the

vocational education programs.

Section 563 of the Improving America's Schools Act, however,

restricts the Department from changing any regulations regarding

special populations and local evaluations until the Perkins Act is

reauthorized. Therefore, those regulations are not included in this

effort to review and improve the regulations governing the vocational

education programs.

Examples of Vocational Education Regulations to Eliminate

The Secretary plans to eliminate the regulations described in this

section because they repeat statutory language. Examples include

Sec. 403.61, which restates section 516(c) of the Perkins Act, and

Sec. 403.62, which restates sections 516(b) and (d) of the Perkins Act,

in the State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program. These

sections describe permissible project services and activities under the

basic grant and the applicable administrative provisions. Another

example of a regulatory provision that the Secretary intends to

eliminate is Sec. 403.70, which restates section 201 of the Act

regarding how a State must use funds to conduct programs, projects,

services, and activities under the State Programs and State Leadership

Activities. An example of a regulatory provision in the-State-

Administered Tech-Prep Education Program that restates statutory

language is Sec. 406.3. This provision repeats the requirements in

section 344 of the Perkins Act, regarding the projects that a State

board assists and how funds must be spent. All of these are examples of

the types of regulations that the Secretary plans to eliminate.

In addition, there are a number of regulatory provisions that

merely restate statutory language, but that consolidate related

requirements from many sections of the Perkins Act in one regulatory

provision for convenience and clarity. For example, Sec. 403.32

consolidates requirements related to the State plan for vocational

education that are imposed by 15 provisions of the Perkins Act. The

Secretary would like input from the public on how to approach

regulations, such as Sec. 403.32, that both restate statutory language

and consolidate related requirements. Are there ways that are as good

or better than regulations for providing the same consolidation and

clarification that would allow the Department to shorten the

regulations and make clear which requirements are statutory? Would it

be useful to retain these types of regulatory provisions?

Moreover, the Department plans to eliminate regulations that

address unfunded programs. For example, the Department would eliminate

Subpart F (Sec. 403.130-Sec. 403.174) of the regulations governing the

State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program (34 CFR Part

403). Subpart F governs the special programs in Title III of the

Perkins Act which were last funded in fiscal year 1994. Other unfunded

programs for which the Secretary intends to eliminate regulations are

the Bilingual Vocational Training Program (34 CFR Part 427) and

Bilingual Vocational Instructor Training Program (34 CFR Part 428). The

Secretary does not expect to have additional funding for any of these

programs prior to the enactment of new legislation that would authorize

vocational education programs.

The Secretary is considering removing sections governing

requirements or procedures provided for in the Education Department

General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). For example, Sec. 411.23,

which applies to the Vocational Education Research Program, establishes

procedures for evaluating unsolicited applications. The Secretary is

considering removing Sec. 411.23 and following the procedures for

evaluating unsolicited applications in EDGAR. Using the EDGAR

procedures would create more uniformity for applicants, particularly

for those who apply for a number of Department grants.

Some regulations provide examples that do not impose requirements

on grantees or applicants and, thus, do not need to exist in

regulations. For instance, in the Business and Education Standards

Program, Sec. 421.2(d) provides examples of comparable national

organizations. Also, Appendix B to Part 403 (State Vocational and

Applied Technology Education Program) contains examples of methods by

which a local educational agency can demonstrate its compliance with

certain comparability requirements. Are examples in the regulations

such as these useful? Or would streamlined regulations, with examples

and other information on implementation provided in other easily

accessible formats, be more desirable?

Examples of Vocational Education Regulations to Review and Improve

Some regulations governing vocational education programs interpret

statutory language or add requirements not explicitly required by

statute. For example, in Sec. 403.31(c), which relates to the State

Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program, the Secretary

implements the statutory phrase ``appropriate and sufficient notice''

as required by section 113(a)(2)(B) of the Perkins Act through a

regulatory provision that requires notice ``at least 30 days prior to

the hearings.'' The Secretary is inclined to delete these specific

regulatory requirements that implement general statutory language and

that do not affect significantly the operation of the program. The

Secretary wants to give States greater flexibility to judge whether

notice is appropriate and sufficient. Is the more specific requirement

necessary to protect the public? Should the Secretary remove provisions

such as this one?

Other regulations that interpret the statute or add requirements

were thought to be needed to clarify statutory requirements that could

have been implemented in a wide variety of ways and that were expected

to affect significantly the operation of the program. The Secretary

expects to review and improve these sections while maintaining

appropriate requirements to facilitate program administration. Examples

of these types of regulations are the following

[[Page 54026]]

provisions regarding the Vocational Education Basic Grant Program (34

CFR Part 403): Sec. 403.118 which establishes criteria for approving an

alternative method for determining how a State may distribute funds for

the Postsecondary and Adult Vocational Education Program; Sec. 403.184

which establishes procedures for seeking a waiver of the maintenance-

of-effort requirement; and Sec. 403.180(c)(3) which explains in detail

the procedure for meeting the ``hold-harmless'' requirements in section

102(c) of the Perkins Act. In the State-Administered Tech-Prep

Education Program (34 CFR Part 406), the Secretary would retain

Sec. 406.10(d), which interprets and clarifies the statutory

requirements for applications, and other sections similar to

Sec. 406.10(d). How can the Secretary improve sections such as these?

Should the Secretary make any changes to these regulations?

Adult Education Programs

Programs authorized by the Adult Education Act, Public Law 89-750,

as amended, support and promote services that assist educationally

disadvantaged adults in developing basic skills, including furthering

literacy, achieving certification of high school equivalency, and

learning English. Through the Adult Education State-Administered Basic

Grant Program (34 CFR Part 461), the Department assists State efforts

to provide these services to adults who lack a high school diploma or

the basic skills to function effectively in the workplace and their

daily lives. At the national level, the Department funds applied

research, dissemination, evaluation, technical assistance, and other

activities that show promise of contributing to the improvement and

expansion of adult education. In addition to the Adult Education State-

Administered Basic Grant Program, the adult education programs governed

by regulations in Title 34 of the CFR are:

State Literacy Resource Centers Program (Part 464)

National Workplace Literacy Program (Part 472)

State Program Analysis Assistance and Policy Studies

Program (Part 477)

Functional Literacy for State and Local Prisoners Program

(Part 489)

Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program (Part

490)

Adult Education for the Homeless Program (Part 491)

In addition to reviewing regulations governing specific adult

education programs, the Secretary is reviewing and may revise the

regulations in 34 CFR Part 460, Adult Education--General Provisions,

which apply to all of the adult education programs.

Examples of Adult Education Regulations to Eliminate

The Secretary plans to eliminate the regulations described in this

section because they either merely repeat statutory language or are

obsolete.

Under the Adult Education State-Administered Basic Grant Program

(34 CFR Part 461), Sec. 461.2 merely repeats sections 321 and 331(a) of

the Adult Education Act regarding which entities are eligible for an

award; Sec. 461.11 restates sections 342(a)(1)-(2) and (b) of the Adult

Education Act, which specify what a State educational agency (SEA) must

do in formulating a State plan; and Sec. 461.40 repeats the statutory

requirements in sections 323 and 331(c) of the Adult Education Act

regarding administrative costs. Are there reasons to retain these

regulations?

Also, under this program, Sec. 461.3(b)(7) requires that, by July

25, 1993, each SEA develop and implement indicators of program quality.

Because this deadline occurred more than three years ago, and because

SEAs are required by the Adult Education Act to continue using

indicators of program quality, the Secretary plans to eliminate this

requirement.

Examples of Adult Education Regulations to Review and Improve

The Secretary would like input from the public on how to approach

regulations that both restate statutory language and interpret the

statute. Examples of regulations that the Secretary is considering

changing follow in this section of the notice.

Section 461.10 of the Adult Education State-Administered Basic

Grant Program describes the documents that a State must submit to

receive a grant. Many of the requirements included in this provision

are explicitly required by the statute; other explicit statutory

requirements are recast in this regulatory provision as assurances that

a State must provide in its application. This provision also requires

that applicants assure that they will meet certain requirements not

explicitly provided for in the statute. Are there reasons not to

eliminate those portions of the regulation that merely repeat statutory

language, including the assurances based on statutory requirements? How

would it affect SEAs if the Department retained only those parts of the

regulations that set forth requirements beyond those explicitly

provided for in the statute?

Section 461.12 is another example of a regulatory provision that

contains both repetition of statutory language and additional

requirements not explicitly contained in the statute. This section

prescribes the required contents of a State plan and an interpretation

of the statutory ``direct and equitable'' requirement, which the

Department plans to retain. Is there any reason not to eliminate those

portions of the regulation that duplicate the statute?

There are also sections of the regulations that interpret the

statute or add requirements that are not explicitly required by statute

and that were thought to be necessary to administer the program more

effectively. Examples of these types of regulations include the

following: Sec. 460.4 which defines terms such as ``adult basic

education'', ``adult secondary education'', and ``State administrative

costs''; Sec. 461.41(c) which explains what constitutes the non-Federal

share of expenditures under the State plan; and Secs. 461.42-461.45

which provide maintenance of effort definitions and procedures,

including provisions regarding obtaining a waiver of these

requirements. What changes should the Secretary make to improve

sections such as these?

Regulations Regarding Fees For Basic Adult Education

There are several regulations that impose requirements that are not

explicitly required by the statute that the Secretary is reviewing and

considering revising.

One example is Sec. 461.10(b)(7), which requires an SEA to assure

that adults enrolled in adult basic education and English as a second

language (ESL) programs will not be charged tuition, fees, or be

required to purchase any materials that are needed for participation in

the program. The Adult Education Act does not specify any restrictions

regarding charging tuition or fees to students in any adult education

programs. The regulations reflect a longstanding Federal policy to make

adult basic education and ESL programs available free of charge.

Historically, the Department has regarded this type of regulation as

necessary to provide access to education for the many adults who lack

the funds to pay for a basic education.

The reason the Secretary has selected the prohibition on fees as an

example of a regulation that will be reviewed is that some SEAs and

local providers have asked the Secretary to reconsider the prohibition.

Because these parties have suggested that some services might be

reduced unless the prohibition is relaxed or eliminated from the

regulations, the Secretary would particularly like input from the

public

[[Page 54027]]

in deciding what changes, if any, should be made to this section. In

considering whether to revise this section, the Secretary requests that

commenters address the impact of their proposals on needy students.

Commenters should be aware that even if the prohibition were

relaxed or eliminated, certain statutory and regulatory provisions

would remain in place. For example, the statute would still afford a

preference to programs that can recruit and serve educationally

disadvantaged adults in areas in which these adults are highly

concentrated; prohibit the supplanting of Federal funds by State and

local funds; and require State maintenance of non-Federal effort.

Section 76.534 of Title 34 of the CFR would also forbid States to count

tuition and fees collected from students toward meeting matching, cost

sharing, or maintenance of effort requirements.

In considering whether and how to revise the prohibition on

charging fees for adult basic education and ESL programs, the Secretary

is particularly interested in comments on one or more of the following

questions:

Have States investigated whether other non-Federal funds

are available to pay for services that might be reduced?

What fees or other costs would SEAs and local programs

propose to charge students?

Could and would States establish a policy to charge fees

only to those adults who are able to pay?

Would adults be denied access to educational opportunities

if they could not pay the necessary fees?

What effects would fees have on the relationship between

programs funded under the Adult Education Act and those funded under

other Federal Acts, such as the Job Training and Partnership Act?

What effects would fees have on the relationship between

programs funded under the Adult Education Act and the goals of recent

welfare reform legislation--the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996?

Will eliminating this prohibition reduce the number of

economically and educationally disadvantaged adults participating in

adult basic education programs?

If eliminating this provision would create hardship for

participants, should the Secretary take measures to lessen the impact?

For example, the Secretary could establish a cap on the amount of fees

that a State could charge, delay implementation of imposing fees,

gradually permit the charging of fees, or link fees to the amount of a

participant's income?

Invitation to Comment:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the

Department's plans to revise the regulations governing the vocational

and adult education programs. After considering the comments received

in response to this advance notice, the Secretary intends to publish

notices of proposed rulemaking with an opportunity for further public

comment before eliminating or implementing any amendments to the

regulations with one exception. For those amendments that the Secretary

believes are non-controversial, such as the elimination of obsolete

regulations, the Secretary intends to publish direct final rules, which

would become effective unless the Department receives any negative

public comment.

Comments will be available for public inspection, during and after

the comment period, in Room 4090, Switzer Building, 330 C Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Dated: October 10, 1996.

Patricia W. McNeil,

Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.

[FR Doc. 96-26413 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P