SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

The Department rescinds the Guidelines, currently appearing in Appendix B to 34 CFR part 100, as well as cross-references to the Guidelines appearing in Appendix B to 34 CFR part 104 and Appendix A to 34 CFR part 106. The Guidelines purport to explain the civil rights responsibilities of Federal funding recipients who offer or administer vocational education programs with respect to nine issue areas: (1) administrative requirements (section IV.O.); (2) recruitment, admissions, and counseling (sections IV.A., K., N., L., and sections V.A. through V.E.); (3) physical accessibility (section IV.N.3); (4) comparable facilities (section IV.D.); (5) services for students with disabilities (sections IV.N. and VI.A.); (6) financial assistance (section VI.B.); (7) work-study, cooperative programs, and job placement (section VII); (8) housing (section VI.C.); and (9) employment (sections VIII.A. through VIII.F.).

Additionally, section II.B. of the Guidelines imposes a proactive compliance structure upon State education agencies that applies only to career and technical education (CTE) or vocational education programs; no parallel proactive compliance structure exists in any other context in civil rights enforcement. This compliance structure requires 68 State education agencies to (1) collect and analyze civil rights information and data; (2) conduct periodic compliance reviews; (3) provide technical assistance upon request; and (4) periodically report method of administration (MOA) activities and findings to the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Practically, this means that the State education agencies must conduct compliance reviews of a subset of their subrecipients (those that operate CTE programs) each year, detail and issue their findings of noncompliance to the subrecipients, and negotiate voluntary compliance plans with the subrecipients to address the State agency's findings. State education agencies then submit biennial reports of these activities to OCR. Although the Department has supplemented the Guidelines with additional guidance in the decades since, culminating in updated procedures issued jointly by OCR and the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education in 2020 that provided State agencies with greater flexibility, the proactive compliance structure, developed to address noncompliance in the 1970s, remains fully in place.

OCR allots considerable staff resources to providing feedback on how State agencies can improve their compliance with the Guidelines by reviewing and responding to biennial reports submitted by State agencies, and providing technical assistance. The Department also conducts an annual week-long training conference for State officials responsible for complying with the Guidelines. The Department has determined that this proactive compliance structure, which applies only to vocational education programs, is no longer necessary given current information and data on CTE programs, and that any benefits from its continued implementation are not justified by its cost and burden on State and local education agencies and postsecondary institutions. The Department is unaware of any recent information demonstrating that recipients administering or operating CTE programs are more likely than other recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department to be out of compliance with civil rights laws and departmental regulations. Furthermore, any civil rights violations occurring in CTE programs can be addressed in the same manner as those arising in the non-CTE context by the Department's vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws through OCR's complaint resolution process and its own proactive enforcement tools, including by initiating compliance reviews and directed investigations.

The Department also issues this action rescinding the Guidelines in furtherance of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025). That Order acknowledges that regulations and other rules, memoranda, guidance documents, and administrative policy statements impose costs and inefficiencies on individuals, businesses, organizations, and government entities, and therefore directs agencies to look for opportunities to eliminate regulatory burdens to offset the costs of existing regulations. The Department would rescind the Guidelines even in the absence of Executive Order 14192 because: (1) oversight of the proactive compliance structure mandated by the Guidelines imposes considerable burdens on recipients without current appreciable benefit; (2) enforcement of the Guidelines consumes considerable Department staff resources without current appreciable benefit; and (3) the additional reasons articulated below support rescission. ( printed page 46287)

With the rescission of the Guidelines, State education agencies and subrecipients will still be responsible for compliance with Federal civil rights laws, including ensuring equal access to CTE programs. However, neither the Department nor recipients who offer or oversee CTE programs will continue to be saddled with the proactive compliance requirements imposed by the Guidelines, particularly those in section II.B.

II. Discussion

A. Historical Background

1. Origins in the Adams Litigation

The Guidelines resulted from litigation based on allegations that HEW failed to properly administer and enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. See44 FR 17162 (Mar. 21, 1979); Adams v. Richardson, 356 F. Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1973), aff'd as modified, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ( en banc) ( per curiam); see also Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (D.D.C. 1972). The Adams plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that HEW knew or should have known that it was funding segregated vocational education programs in a manner that was “symptomatic of a general failure by HEW to exercise its Title VI jurisdiction with respect to State Departments of Education which approve and administer programs of Federal financial assistance.” ^[1]

In 1977, the district court issued a consent order directing HEW to develop and implement specific procedures to ensure civil rights compliance in vocational education programs, which stated in pertinent part:

By September 1, 1978, defendants shall . . . publicly issue criteria or guidelines which shall define the ingredients of a violation of Title VI by vocational schools. The statement or regulation shall include a description of how current Title VI regulations applicable generally to all recipients of HEW funds apply specifically to the operation of vocational schools.

Order at 27, ¶ 38(b), Adams v. Califano, No. 70-cv-3095 (D.D.C. 1977) (consent order). In response, HEW proposed such criteria and procedures on December 19, 1978, at 43 FR 59105, and finalized them as the Guidelines on March 21, 1979, at 44 FR 17162. The Department codified the Guidelines the following year as Appendix B to 34 CFR part 100 and cross-referenced in Appendix B to 34 CFR part 104 and Appendix A to 34 CFR part 106.

The Adams litigation was subsequently dismissed in its entirety for being “constitutionally impermissible.” Women's Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 906 F.2d 742, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Ginsburg, J.), aff'g on other grounds sub nom. Adams v. Bennett, 675 F. Supp. 668, 670, 681 (D.D.C. 1987). The D.C. Circuit described the litigation as “seek[ing] across-the-board continuing federal court supervision of the process by which the agencies ensure compliance with . . . antidiscrimination mandates.” Id. at 748. It held that no cause of action authorized the litigation in the first place and that the plaintiffs had no means of obtaining the relief they desired. Citing Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), and Council of and for the Blind v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ( en banc), the D.C. Circuit concluded that none of the laws the plaintiffs invoked authorized “a broad-gauged right of action directly against the federal government officers charged with monitoring and enforcing funding recipients' compliance with discrimination proscriptions.” Cavazos, 906 F.2d at 747. It thus affirmed the district court's dismissal, finally terminating the litigation in 1990. Id. at 744, 747, 752 (“[W]e hold that the generalized action plaintiffs pursue against federal executive agencies lacks the requisite green light from the legislative branch.”).

2. 1979 Issuance of the Guidelines

The final Guidelines were published by HEW in the Federal Register on March 21, 1979. 44 FR 17162. The Guidelines purported to “explain the civil rights responsibilities of recipients of federal funds offering or administering vocational education programs” and charged the relevant State education agencies overseeing CTE programs with monitoring subrecipients through a new proactive compliance structure. Id. Those requirements, described in section II.B. of the Guidelines, mandated State agencies to prevent, identify, and remedy unlawful discrimination in CTE programs by (1) collecting and analyzing information and data; (2) conducting periodic compliance reviews; (3) providing technical assistance; and (4) periodically reporting agency activities and findings to the Department. Section II.C. directed State agencies to submit “methods of administration and related procedures” for complying with the Guidelines “[w]ithin one year from the publication of these Guidelines in final form.” Id. at 17165 (emphasis added). The 1979 Federal Register notice promulgating the Guidelines stated that the Guidelines were “a result of injunctive orders entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in [the Adams litigation,]” due to HEW's finding of “evidence of continuing unlawful discrimination in vocational education programs.” Id. at 17162.

In describing this evidence, the 1979 notice presented two categories. First, it cited enrollment data from HEW's Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education for 1976 and 1977 showing that “male and female students are concentrated in programs traditionally identified as intended for them.” Id. For example, female students comprised 78.8 percent of enrollment in health occupations programs and 84.7 percent of enrollment in occupational home economics, while male students comprised 87.3 percent of enrollment in trade and industrial programs and 88.7 percent of enrollment in vocational agriculture. Id. at 17162-63.

Second, the notice cited compliance reviews conducted by OCR from 1973 to 1978 that “consistently found civil rights violations in vocational schools,” including: (1) eligibility requirements such as geographic residence or admissions tests that denied opportunities on the basis of race, national origin, and “handicap”; (2) assignment of “handicapped students” to separate, inaccessible facilities; (3) continued operation of vocational schools as “essentially segregated facilities”; (4) denial of equal opportunity to national origin minorities with limited English proficiency; (5) failure to protect against discrimination in employer placement; and (6) assignment of faculty and staff “on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and handicap.” Id. at 17162-63. The 1979 notice acknowledged, however, that “[i]n recent years, vocational education administrators have addressed unlawful discrimination in their programs.” Id. at 17163.

B. Subsequent Changes in Law

The Department does not contend that discrimination in CTE programs has been eradicated. The Department's OCR continues to receive and investigate complaints alleging discrimination on the bases of race, sex, national origin, and disability in education programs, including in CTE programs. But the Department has seen no recent evidence indicating that discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability is more prevalent in CTE programs than in other ( printed page 46288) education programs or activities administered by recipients more broadly.^[2] The Department remains committed to vigorous enforcement of the civil rights statutes within its jurisdiction, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (same with respect to sex), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (same with respect to disability).

Governing law has gone through considerable changes since the Guidelines were promulgated in 1979. First, the Guidelines were promulgated as a direct result of “across-the-board continuing federal court supervision of the process by which the agencies ensure compliance with . . . antidiscrimination mandates.” Cavazos, 906 F.2d at 748. Such monitoring was foreclosed by Cannon and Council of and for the Blind. Id. at 747. As the D.C. Circuit explained, “the message of Cannon was that no private right of action should be inferred from federal legislation[,] absent a showing of approbation from the lawmaking branch” and that “Congress wished to ward off suits against the government of the very kind plaintiffs now press.” Id. Similarly, Council of and for the Blind made clear that because private “suits directly against discriminating entities were adequate to redress injuries[,] . . . the APA did not provide a discrete claim for relief against the federal monitoring agency.” Id. at 748. This holding reflects two important principles: (1) Congress trusted Federal agencies, including the Department, to enforce Title VI using their own reasoned judgment, rather than by implementing the dictates of Federal courts; and (2) “Congress considered private suits to end discrimination not merely adequate but in fact the proper means for individuals to enforce Title VI” to the extent that they are unsatisfied with Federal enforcement. Id. at 751. In its exercise of discretion, the Department no longer believes that the Guidelines are an effective or efficient vehicle to achieve the goals of Title VI.

Second, subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, most notably Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) ( SFFA), Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), and Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S. Ct. 1131(2026), have materially altered the legal landscape relevant to the Guidelines. In Sandoval, the Court held that private plaintiffs lacked a private right of action to enforce the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) disparate-impact regulations. 532 U.S. at 285-87. Although the Court had previously found a private cause of action to enforce Title VI's bar on intentional discrimination, id. at 279-80, that holding did not permit private suit to enforce regulations that “forbid conduct that [Title VI] permits.” Id. at 285. While Sandoval “assume[d],” without deciding, that DOJ's regulations were valid, it explained that they are in “considerable tension” with the Supreme Court's Title VI precedents and the text of the statute itself. Id. at 281-82, 284-85; see also id. at 286 n.6 (“[Title VI] permits the very behavior that the regulations forbid.”).

SFFA and Callais make clear that the use of race, color, or national origin to assign benefits and burdens is presumptively unconstitutional. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 206 (“`[The] guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.'”); id. at 223 (“ `[O]utright racial balancing' is `patently unconstitutional.' ”); Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1152 (noting that Court precedent identified just two compelling interests that justified racial discrimination, declining to add to that list). While the Court has permitted racial discrimination to remedy the effects of “specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute,” that corrective discrimination must be narrowly tailored to achieving that end. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 207; Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1152.

Finally, Loper Bright held that “statutes . . . have a single, best meaning” that is “fixed at the time of enactment” and that courts interpreting those statutes must employ that single, best meaning. 603 U.S. at 400.

In light of these decisions, the Department has considerable concerns about the continuing validity of many provisions in the Guidelines, which are intended to eliminate race-, sex-, and disability-based disparities that may occur in CTE programs, without inquiry into the cause of such disparities. It is unclear whether any such disparities result from intentional discrimination or, alternatively, the informed decisions of students who may choose to enroll in one program or another for any number of reasons. The Guidelines do not differentiate. The Guidelines look to data and operate under the presumption that any data discrepancies are the result of discrimination, thus constituting a civil rights violation. The Constitution directs otherwise. Given these concerns, the Department finds that it is preferable to rescind the Guidelines rather than to continue to enforce them despite their questionable vitality under the Constitution. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) (“[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”). The Department additionally finds that attempting to modify the Guidelines by excising from them each provision that raises constitutional questions would leave the Guidelines incoherent, unhelpful, and otherwise flawed for other reasons discussed herein.

Third, rescinding the Guidelines does not reduce or limit the nondiscrimination obligations applicable to recipients enforced by the Department under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., as implemented by 34 CFR parts 100, 104, and 106 respectively. Those regulations remain fully in effect and continue to provide the operative legal framework for all departmental compliance and enforcement activities.

C. Subsequent Changes in Fact

In the 1970s, there was widespread discrimination on the basis of race in CTE programs. Indeed, the 1979 Federal Register notice promulgating the Guidelines referenced “evidence of continuing unlawful discrimination in vocational education programs” and documented recurring civil rights violations in vocational schools that HEW's Office for Civil Rights had identified in compliance reviews conducted between 1973 and 1978. 44 FR at 17162-63. The notice expressly acknowledges that it was apparent to HEW “that many vocational education administrators engage in unlawfully discriminatory practices.” Id. at 17162. Similarly, the Adams court noted that ten southern States were “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI.” Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. at 637-38. When HEW requested desegregation plans from the ten States, five of them ( printed page 46289) submitted “unacceptable” plans,^[3] and the other five failed to respond at all. ⁴ Id. Regarding vocational programs in particular, HEW did not have demographic data for many of the recipients subject to the litigation. Id. at 639. In Louisiana, the only State for which HEW provided the court statistics regarding students and faculty in vocational schools, those statistics showed “seven [vocational] schools as overwhelmingly black and 25 [vocational] schools as overwhelmingly white.” Id. It was against this backdrop that the Adams court ordered HEW to issue the Guidelines.

One of the problems facing the Adams court was a dearth of adequate data. Indeed, the Federal Register notice acknowledged the absence of adequate data to enable the court to fully assess the extent of segregation: “Current information on the enrollment of handicapped and minority students in specific vocational programs is not available.” 44 FR at 17163.

Almost 50 years later, the data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and other sources demonstrate that the significant race disparities in CTE participation that existed in the 1970s, at the onset of the Adams litigation, no longer exist. For example, Table H259 of NCES's CTE statistics from 2019 demonstrates near-parity in the percentage of public high school graduates of each race earning CTE credits.^[5]

That parity persists regardless of the extent to which students commit to CTE programming. For example, NCES reports the following for students who earned multiple CTE credits: ^[6]

Further, as of 2024, four-year graduation rates from secondary CTE programs are above 94 percent, regardless of racial classification.^[7] For example, 96.57 percent of black CTE concentrators graduated within 4 years.^[8]

When comparing NCES data with U.S. Census Bureau data for the same period, it is apparent that minority students are slightly overrepresented in postsecondary CTE programming. Combining decennial census data for 2020 with NCES data on the racial composition of the cohort of approximately 6.7 million sub-baccalaureate occupational education students in the 2015-16 school year reveals the following: ^[9]

The Department does not mean to suggest that overrepresentation of minorities in CTE programs is a goal that the Department can seek to achieve or even that any particular percentage of minorities in CTE programs is the “right” number. To the contrary, “[o]utright racial balancing is patently unconstitutional.” SFFA, 600 U.S. at 223 (cleaned up). The point is simply that the factual conditions that inspired the Guidelines half a century ago are no longer present.

With regard to sex, the principal problem that the Guidelines sought to address was somewhat different. The Federal Register notice promulgating the Guidelines noted that males and females self-segregate into particular programs, such as females in health and ( printed page 46290) home economics and males in trade and industrial programs. 44 FR at 17162-63. OCR has seen no evidence indicating that statistical discrepancies in male and female enrollment in particular areas are the result of sex discrimination. It is just as likely that men and women choose different fields because men and women prefer different fields. And to the extent this is a lingering effect of historical discrimination (the Department has seen no evidence indicating that it is), OCR's existing enforcement structure is more than adequate to address the problem. Thus, to the extent that the Guidelines were promulgated to address intentional sex discrimination, the Department finds that the Guidelines are no longer necessary.

Finally, regarding disability, the 1979 Federal Register promulgating the Guidelines articulated concerns that students with disabilities were being discriminated against in various ways in CTE programs, although it did not provide specific data documenting the nature or extent of those concerns. Id. at 17163. It appears that discrimination against students with disabilities in CTE programs has significantly diminished since the 1970s, due in large part to subsequent changes in the law guaranteeing accommodations for students with disabilities and in compliance with and enforcement of those laws (across all education programs, not just CTE programs). For example, participation by students with disabilities in secondary CTE programming has reached near parity. In the 2022-23 school year, 14.79 percent of secondary CTE participants were students with disabilities, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).^[10] According to NCES, in the same school year, roughly the same percentage—15 percent—of students ages 3 to 21 years received special education and/or related services under IDEA.^[11] This is a strong indication that students with disabilities are well represented in secondary CTE programs.^[12] Further, the Department has seen no evidence indicating that program access to CTE programs for students with disabilities is a particular problem necessitating the special requirements imposed by the Guidelines. To the extent that students with disabilities are denied equal access to or face other forms of discrimination in CTE programs, OCR's existing enforcement structure is more than sufficient to address any allegations of discrimination and correct noncompliance.

The Department thus concludes that the concerns that motivated promulgation of the Guidelines to combat discrimination based on race, sex, and disability in CTE programs no longer justify the continued existence of the Guidelines or the special rules they impose on recipients administering CTE programs.

D. Unjustified Expense

State education agencies and their subrecipients subject to the Guidelines face a very significant economic burden under the Guidelines. Data submitted to OCR by 68 State education agencies ^[13] for school years ending 2023 and 2024 reveal that together they devote at least 54 full time equivalent (FTE) employees to ensure State compliance with the Guidelines. That data is incomplete because five State education agencies failed to report FTE data, and the Department accordingly estimates that the actual total is nearly 60 FTE employees. This suggests that the Guidelines force States to repurpose approximately 60 employees who could have been utilized to oversee State education programs to improve student outcomes and success.

Subrecipients likewise bear a considerable burden for their compliance with the Guidelines. According to the Texas Education Agency, local educational agencies in Texas required to comply with the Guidelines must compile and submit documentation to the State; host an on-site review by State officials that includes staff and student interviews, document review, and accessibility walkthroughs of every campus operating CTE programs; review and respond to a Letter of Findings by the State, within the timeframe set by the State; and develop and implement a potentially multi-year compliance plan.^[14] To offer one specific example in the postsecondary context, Valencia College in Orlando, Florida—widely recognized as one of the premier CTE postsecondary institutions in the country,^[15] with a total enrollment of 75,346 students in school year 2024-25 and with over 150 degree and certificate programs—reports to the Department that it dedicates approximately 100 hours of staff time for a compliance review under the Guidelines. Those expenses and the underlying reporting obligations exist in addition to, and are potentially duplicative of, other Federal and State oversight and legal obligations.

The overall costs incurred by the Department due to its oversight of the Guidelines are difficult to quantify because the Department does not track the portion of its enforcement, oversight, and technical assistance activities that relate specifically to the Guidelines. However, OCR has recently employed approximately 2 FTE employees to oversee implementation, enforcement, data collection, and provision of technical assistance under the Guidelines. Although that number has changed over the years, the Department continues to employ full-time staff to provide oversight of the program, interact regularly with State agencies, provide technical assistance, run an annual week-long training conference for State officials responsible for complying with the Guidelines, review and respond to reports submitted pursuant to the Guidelines, and help direct enforcement of the Guidelines. The Guidelines pose a notable financial burden on the Department, and as explained at length throughout this rule, this financial burden is not justified by the Guidelines' proactive compliance structure.

Through this action, the Department will free up assets to better enable State education agencies and their subrecipients to further their missions, and the Department will be able to more effectively utilize taxpayer dollars for the enforcement of Federal civil rights laws utilizing the Department's existing complaint resolution and proactive ( printed page 46291) enforcement processes, conducting those activities more efficiently.

E. Adequacy of Regulatory Enforcement Mechanisms

OCR enforces civil rights laws that protect millions of students attending or seeking to attend our Nation's educational institutions from unlawful discrimination on several bases, including race, sex, and disability. The majority of OCR's enforcement obligations each year consist of investigating and resolving the large number of complaints filed by individuals. Any person who believes that there has been a violation of the civil rights laws enforced by OCR may file a complaint. The individual or organization filing the complaint does not need to be directly impacted by the alleged discrimination. Upon receiving a complaint, OCR's primary objective is to investigate allegations of discrimination promptly, determine whether a civil rights violation has occurred, and, where a violation is established, remedy the violation by requiring recipients to take corrective action including making substantive changes to address civil rights violations and compliance concerns.^[16]

OCR is permitted by regulation to initiate “periodic compliance reviews” to assess the practices of recipients to determine whether they comply with the antidiscrimination laws enforced by OCR. 34 CFR 100.7(a). Although these regulations afford OCR broad discretion to determine the substantive issues for investigation and the number and frequency of the investigations, OCR also has the authority to initiate directed investigations when information indicates a possible failure to comply with the civil rights laws and regulations, the matter warrants attention, and the compliance concern is not otherwise being addressed through OCR's complaint, compliance review, or technical assistance activities. These “proactive” investigations enable OCR to respond to and correct civil rights violations in schools.

Both the complaint process and OCR's proactive investigatory processes apply to CTE programs no differently than to any other educational program operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department. Both the complaint process and OCR's proactive investigatory processes are available to any student or employee participating in a CTE program and any recipient that administers or operates a CTE program must comply with Federal civil rights laws. These processes exist independent of the Guidelines and are not impacted by the rescission of the Guidelines. OCR's enforcement structure is more than adequate to enable OCR to enforce Federal civil rights law—and ensure compliance—in CTE programs.

F. Need for Rescission

1. Alternative Considered

In developing this action, the Department considered the alternative approach of revising the Guidelines selectively to remove from them those provisions that the Department finds most problematic, duplicative, burdensome, or outdated. For the reasons explained below, the Department finds that no amount of careful editing could have satisfied the Department's legal and policy concerns while leaving intact any sort of coherent framework akin to the Guidelines in their current form.

Any revision to the Guidelines would likely need to preserve the existing monitoring and reporting requirements to the limited extent those requirements are not redundant with Federal statutory requirements. But to avoid wasting the resources of both OCR and the State agencies that are required to perform proactive monitoring, compliance, and reporting functions, the monitoring and reporting requirements that are in fact redundant with Federal statutes would have to be removed. The Guidelines would thus have to be written around those Federal statutes. Doing so would create a dizzying maze of exceptions that, as a practical matter, would lead risk-averse State agencies to continue to follow the practices required by the Guidelines (even after doing so was unnecessary), thereby preserving much of the burden that the Department seeks to eliminate. Many reporting State agencies likely would have found it easier to submit data to OCR than to decipher the hypothetical revised Guidelines to determine whether the information at issue fits within one of the exceptions. Accordingly, as a functional matter, eliminating redundant monitoring and reporting burdens on State agencies requires the full rescission of the Guidelines. And to the extent that any State agencies might have desired to navigate this complex web, their efforts to do so likely would have imposed significant additional burdens on OCR because OCR would have needed to provide technical assistance—both proactively, in advance of any problem, and in response to specific problems as they arise—to help those State agencies comply with a very confusing set of rules. Moreover, State agencies likely would have made mistakes in attempting to comply, which would have necessitated additional enforcement action by OCR to address unintentional technical violations of an overly complex set of rules setting the parameters of the reporting and monitoring requirements. But imposing all of these additional burdens—on recipients and OCR alike—runs directly counter to the objective of simplifying regulatory burdens in this area.

The reporting and monitoring requirements are only part of the problem. The Guidelines also impose various nondiscrimination requirements. OCR has examined those sections and has determined that all of them either (1) mirror the Department's existing civil rights regulations, particularly including 34 CFR 100.3, 100.5, 104.4, 104.11-104.14, 104.21, 104.34, 104.38, 104.42-104.46, 106.21-106.23, 106.31-106.37, 106.51, and 106.53, or (2) differ slightly from the Department's existing civil rights regulations but not in a manner that is reasonably likely to prevent additional discrimination, further improve compliance with civil rights laws, or better remedy violations of civil rights laws. That is not particularly surprising because, if the Guidelines materially expanded a recipient's substantive obligations beyond those provided by statute or regulation, they likely would have been illegal and unenforceable as being inconsistent with the laws and regulations OCR enforces.

Because the Guidelines' substantive nondiscrimination requirements largely repeat the regulations and add nothing of significance, they serve no material purpose. Editing them such that they might have added something of value, without expanding them well beyond OCR's statutory and regulatory authority, is likely impossible and, in the Department's view, a waste of time. Any such innovations that the Department might want to add to the Guidelines belong in the regulatory text, not an appendix to the regulations.

2. Reliance Interests

The Department has considered the reliance interests that may have developed during the nearly five ( printed page 46292) decades the Guidelines have been in effect and has weighed those interests against the regulatory objectives achieved by rescission of the Guidelines. The Department is aware that many State educational agencies employ full time staff to facilitate their compliance with the Guidelines. The Department is also aware that the Guidelines were (1) enacted because CTE programs were previously segregated and therefore inaccessible to all students, and (2) because there were serious problems with discrimination in CTE programs. The Department concludes that these and other reliance interests do not outweigh the policy concerns supporting rescission.

State agencies relieved of the excessive burdens imposed on them by the Guidelines will have more resources available to them to conduct their principal function: administering educational programs that improve student outcomes and success. Freeing up those resources is a substantial benefit to students and outweighs whatever reliance interest recipients may have in maintaining their existing programs. Further, to the extent that States find value in the data they create in response to the monitoring and reporting requirements imposed by the Guidelines, nothing here prevents them from continuing to seek that data under their own authority or State law. Indeed, most States have already integrated their functions under the Guidelines into their own CTE compliance activities.

As to any reliance interests related to any purported positive impact that the Guidelines may have made in the past, the Department notes that the problem that the Guidelines were created to solve has been largely addressed and that the Department's existing enforcement structure, supported by the Department's regulation at 34 CFR 100.6(b) (requiring recipients to maintain civil rights compliance data and provide it to the Department on request), is more than sufficient to address any allegations of discrimination occurring in CTE programs. And, in any event, this is a run-of-the-mill policy concern, not a cognizable reliance interest, because those nonrecipients who might have benefited from future enforcement of the Guidelines, by definition, have not entered any relationship with a recipient in reliance on the Department's enforcement of the Guidelines.

III. Changes to Part 100 Appendix B, Part 104 Appendix B, and Part 106 Appendix A

The Department rescinds the Guidelines and the two places they are cross-referenced, as follows:

1. Remove the full text of Appendix B to 34 CFR part 100;

2. Remove the full text of Appendix B to 34 CFR part 104; and

3. Remove the full text of Appendix A to 34 CFR part 106.

No other portions of 34 CFR parts 100, 104, or 106 are impacted by this action.

IV. Regulatory Certifications

Exemption From Notice-and-Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act

The Department issues this action without prior public notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), which excludes from section 553's notice-and-comment requirements matters relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This action relates to the nondiscrimination provisions of an appendix to the Title VI regulations that impose conditions on receiving Federal financial assistance, and public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts constitute such assistance under both Title VI and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Department's Title VI regulation defines financial assistance to include “grants and loans of federal funds,” “property,” “interests in property,” “personnel,” and “any federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.” 34 CFR 100.13(f). Similar definitions of Federal financial assistance are codified at 34 CFR 104.3 (under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 34 CFR 106.2 (under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972). Recipients are required, as a condition on the approval of any request for Federal financial assistance and the subsequent extension of any Federal financial assistance, to provide the Department with an “assurance” of “compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to [Title VI].” 34 CFR 100.4; see Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212, 217-18 (2022) (observing that Congress enacted Title VI “[p]ursuant to its authority to `fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money'” (internal citation omitted)); see also34 CFR 104.5 (requiring a similar assurance under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); 34 CFR 106.4 (requiring a similar assurance under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972).

Section 553(a)(2) exempts from notice-and-comment rulemaking matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” The Department has carefully reviewed those broad categories of exempt matters together with the definitions of Federal financial assistance at 34 CFR 100.13(f), 34 CFR 104.3, and 34 CFR 106.2, the specific assurances required by 34 CFR 100.4, 34 CFR 104.5, and 34 CFR 106.4, and the types of Federal financial assistance provided by the Department. Based on this review, the Department has concluded that all of the types of Federal financial assistance provided by the Department that are implicated in this final rule are within the categories of exempt activities listed in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). This final rule is thus exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Similarly, the Department's reliance on 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) is consistent with the definition of Federal financial assistance provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) in 2 CFR 200.1, which defines such assistance with the same categories as the APA's exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). With potentially limited exceptions not applicable to the Department, all the forms of Federal financial assistance set forth in 2 CFR 200.1 that the Department administers would fall under the “public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” exception.

Courts have found that rules related to these forms of financial assistance are exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. See, e.g., Cal. Dep't of Educ. v. Bennett, 849 F.2d 1227, 1236 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a Department rule concerning the return of Federal funds used for improper purposes did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Snow, 561 F.2d 227, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (holding that a Federal Highway Administration rule governing the issuance of Federal funding for highways was exempt from notice-and-comment procedures); Texas v. Becerra, 577 F. Supp. 3d 527, 547 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (“The APA specifically exempts matters relating to `grants,' and Head Start is a federal grant program”).

This action relates to the public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts that constitute Federal financial assistance because it eliminates various compliance requirements that are imposed as a condition on the receipt of that assistance. The “relates to” standard is ( printed page 46293) a broad one, easily satisfied by this action. See Cummings, 596 U.S. at 217-18 (observing that Congress enacted Title VI “[p]ursuant to its authority to `fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money'” (citation omitted)). As one court explained, “Section 553(a)(2) cuts a wide swath” and “a broad domain is preserved for its operation.” Humana of S.C., Inc. v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1070, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “[T]o the extent that any one of the enumerated categories is clearly and directly involved in the regulatory effort at issue, the Act's procedural compulsions are suspended.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This action is therefore exempt under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Cf. Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefitting From Federal Financial Assistance,82 FR 46655. 46655-56 (Oct. 6, 2017) (invoking exception to amend Title IX regulations to “promote consistency in the enforcement of Title IX for [Department of Agriculture] financial assistance recipients”); Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,85 FR 47899, 47904 (Aug. 7, 2020) (invoking exception to repeal Housing and Urban Development rule regarding Federal grantees); Participation by Minority Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation Programs,53 FR 18285, 18286 (May 23, 1988) (invoking exception to expand coverage of Department of Transportation regulation regarding Federal Aviation Administration's airport financial assistance program); Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs—Suspension of Guidelines With Respect to Mass Transportation,46 FR 40687, 40688 (Aug. 11, 1981) (invoking exception to suspend DOJ guidelines regarding prohibiting disability discrimination in transportation programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance).

Thus, the Department issues this action without prior public notice and comment, under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Further, because the exception in section 553(a)(2) applies to section 553 as a whole, the Department issues this action without the delayed effective date typically required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

Executive Order 12250, Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws

E.O. 12250 delegates to the Attorney General the President's function of approving rules, regulations, and orders of general applicability under section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department of Justice has reviewed and approved this rule.

Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies to consider both the quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits of a rule and to adopt a regulation only if the rule justifies its costs. This action has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, as well as with Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), which supplements and explicitly affirms the principles of Executive Order 12866. Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13563 states that agencies may consider qualitative values that are either difficult or impossible to quantify, while Section 3 directs agencies to harmonize their regulations to simplify their burden and to avoid inconsistent and overlapping requirements. As discussed above, the Guidelines no longer justify their costs and include requirements that overlap with those already found in the Department's civil rights regulations.

The overall costs incurred by the Department due to its oversight of the Guidelines are difficult to quantify, as the Department does not track the portion of its enforcement, oversight, and technical assistance activities that relate specifically to the Guidelines. Nor is it able to quantify recipients' current compliance costs with the Guidelines. However, as noted above, the Department most recently employed 2 FTE staff and estimates that the States together employ approximately 60 FTE staff dedicated to the administration of the Guidelines. The Guidelines impose additional substantial burdens on subrecipients that are likewise difficult to quantify.

This deregulatory action should decrease the amount of staffing resources the States, subrecipients, and the Department must allocate to compliance with an outdated regime that is no longer necessary and is unique in civil rights enforcement. The Department has determined that this action, while not an “economically significant” action in terms of imposing costs on the economy and society, is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.

Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

Executive Order 14192, 90 FR 9065, establishes a regulatory budget process for agencies and requires them to offset new regulatory burdens or costs. This action is expected to be a deregulatory action; it will not increase the total incremental cost of the Department's regulations but is likely to decrease it. By rescinding the Guidelines, the Department is removing a substantial compliance burden on State education agencies and their subrecipients, thereby eliminating an overly burdensome and unnecessary regulation. Accordingly, the Department expects this action to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), ensures that Federal regulations preempt State and local laws and rules only when Congress expressly authorizes or gives an agency clear authority to do so. This action will not have a substantial direct effect on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, on distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, or on States' policymaking discretion. State and local recipients of Federal funding voluntarily comply with civil rights laws and the Department regulations implementing them as a condition of receiving the funding. This action does not subject recipients to new obligations. As a result, and in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that these amendments to the Department's regulations do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement as outlined in section 6(c)(2).

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

This action meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), to specify provisions in clear language. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this action or any previous administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing directly relating to the Guidelines is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States. ( printed page 46294)

Executive Order 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations

Executive Order 14294, 90 FR 20363 (May 14, 2025), requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This action does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294's requirements.

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies must consider whether a rule will create additional burdens related to recordkeeping, paperwork, or information collection. This action will not impose any additional burdens or requirements in these respects. To the contrary, it will reduce paperwork burdens on State education agencies that will no longer have to submit biennial reports to the Department under section II.B. of the Guidelines.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 6

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required “to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking” prior to issuing the final rule. See5 U.S.C. 604(a). Because this action is being issued without a prior proposal, on the grounds set forth above, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the RFA. Further, even if the RFA were applicable here, the Department would find that rescinding the Guidelines will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rescission does not impose any new substantive obligations on Federal funding recipients. It simply amends existing text appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations by removing burdens on State education agencies and other recipients. All Federal funding recipients remain bound by the Department's regulations that are already in place.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare assessments of any rule that would result in the annual expenditure of more than $100 million by State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. UMRA does not apply because 2 U.S.C. 1503(2) excludes any Federal regulation that “establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.” This action is therefore not subject to UMRA.

Congressional Review Act

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has found that this action is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons discussed in this action, the Secretary of Education amends parts 100, 104, and 106 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

Appendix B to Part 100 [Removed]

Appendix B to Part 104 [Removed]

Appendix A to Part 106 [Removed]

91 FR 46285