SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov. A brief summary of the proposed rule is also available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. If you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via regulations.gov, please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Department will not accept comments by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that the Department does not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once.Additionally, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

To ensure that public comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, the Department urges that each comment clearly identify the specific section or sections of the regulations that the comment addresses and that comments be in the same order as the regulations. In finalizing these proposed regulations, the Department may issue certain aspects of the final rule separately in order to appropriately respond to comments submitted by the public.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.Regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “FAQ.” Also included on Regulations.gov is a commenter checklist that addresses how to submit effective comments.

In instances where individual submissions appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a writing campaign, the Department may choose to post to Regulations.gov one representative sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign. The Department will consider these comments along with all other comments received. In instances where individual submissions are bundled together (submitted as a single document or packaged together), the Department will post all of the substantive comments included in the submissions along with the total comment count for that document or package to Regulations.gov.

Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to Regulations.gov and may be referred to the appropriate authorities.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about the proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to generally make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this document. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Background

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we propose to amend 2 CFR parts 3474 and 3485 and parts 75, 76, 77, and 79 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These changes are detailed in the Summary of Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action and the Significant Proposed Regulations section of this document.

Summary of Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action: As discussed in greater detail in the Significant Proposed Regulations section of this document, the proposed regulations would:

• Make technical updates to ensure consistency across parts of EDGAR, including amending certain sections of its agency-specific Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards regulations in2 CFR parts 3474 and 3485 by making technical updates to the cross-references cited in both parts to reflect revisions to the Uniform Administrative ( printed page 54667) Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
• Promote efficiency and cost savings within the Department and become more consistent with common practices among other Federal agencies, with regard to the publishing of notices and priorities in §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8.
• Clarify and streamline the selection criteria the Secretary may use to make discretionary awards under § 75.210.
• Clarify procedural approaches, such as the making of continuation awards under § 75.253.
• Ensure merit practices and high standards for all grants under §§ 75.500 and 76.500.
• Align EDGAR with the evidence framework in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and Returning Education to the States, published in theFederal Register September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514), by updating the definitions related to evidence in Part 77.

The applicable authority for this regulatory package is 20 U.S.C. 1221 through 1221-1; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1228a(c); 20 U.S.C. 3402; and 20 U.S.C. 3474, unless otherwise noted.

Proposed Regulations

Part 75 Direct Grant Programs

SECTION 75.4 [RESERVED]

Current Regulation: Section 75.4 is currently reserved.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to add a new § 75.4 that would add a severability provision, to be included in the general subpart A, which would make clear that, if any part of the proposed regulations in Part 75 is held invalid by a court, the remainder would still be in effect.

Reason: Each of the sections in Part 75 serves one or more related but distinct purposes. To best serve these purposes, we would include this administrative provision in the regulations to make clear that the regulations are designed to operate independently of each other and to convey the Department's intent that the potential invalidity of one provision should not affect the remainder. Relatedly, we propose to remove the separate severability provisions already specific to Subparts A, E, and F.

SECTION 75.51 HOW TO PROVE NONPROFIT STATUS

Current Regulation: Section 75.51 provides information on how and what an applicant may provide to prove their nonprofit status.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to change the “may” language around providing documentation to a “must.”

Reasons: The use of “may” makes it difficult, if an applicant does not provide documentation, for the Department to confirm nonprofit status, including requiring a search of multiple sources to try and confirm status.

SECTION 75.63 SEVERABILITY

Current Regulation: Section 75.63 includes language related to severability specific to Subpart A of Part 75.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to remove and reserve § 75.63.

Reasons: Section 75.63 discusses severability specific to Subpart A of Part 75, but the proposed § 75.4 would add language about severability applicability to all of Part 75; therefore, severability language for a specific subpart is unnecessary.

SECTION 75.100 PUBLICATION OF AN APPLICATION NOTICE; CONTENT OF THE NOTICE

Current Regulation: Section 75.100 includes a regulation related to the publication of an application notice and the content of the notice announcing the opportunity to apply for a new grant.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to eliminate the requirement for the Secretary to publish application notices in the Federal Register . The proposed regulation would result in cost savings for the Department and taxpayers, be consistent with the notice requirements for Federal agencies in the governmentwide grants regulations in 2 CFR 200.204, align the Department's practices with more common practices among other Federal agencies, and allow the Department to streamline and simplify notices that are currently constrained by the rules of publishing in the Federal Register , such as formatting limitations, including the use of tables. Given that Federal agencies are charged a fee to publish documents in the Federal Register , this change would provide hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual cost savings for taxpayers and the Department.^[1] For a detailed breakdown on the cost savings analysis, please review the Regulatory Impact Analysis section. Additionally, this proposed change would simplify the process for making application notices available to the public by removing time delays on public notification of funding opportunities. Currently, applicants seeking grants through the Department and other agencies must register and submit applications via Grants.gov, where funding opportunities are already listed. By eliminating the regulation to post notices in the Federal Register , applicants would no longer need to monitor multiple sources for grant information. Instead, they can rely on Grants.gov for all updates. Grants.gov provides the ability for potential applicants to receive email notification as new funding opportunities are posted. As ED increasingly partners with other Federal agencies as part of its “final mission” to return education to the States, in line with Executive Order 14242, this change will help align the Department's funding notices with the practices of other agencies, for consistent and improved government-wide simplification of notices that are not limited by required formatting and publishing standards with the Federal Register .

SECTION 75.104 ADDITIONAL APPLICATION PROVISIONS

Current Regulation: Section 75.104 concerns applicants' compliance with application provisions.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to eliminate the requirement for the Secretary to publish maximum award amounts for grant competitions in application notices in the Federal Register . Instead, maximum award amounts would be included in the application notices.

Reason: As noted above, this change would simplify the Department's practices in alignment with other agencies.

SECTION 75.105 ANNUAL ABSOLUTE, COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE, AND INVITATIONAL PRIORITIES

Current Regulation: Section 75.105(b) specifies that the Secretary establishes priorities for the selection of applications in a particular fiscal year by publishing such annual priorities in a notice in the Federal Register .

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to eliminate the requirement for the Secretary to publish annual priorities for grant competitions in application notices in the Federal Register . Instead, priorities would be included in the application notices.

Reasons: As noted above, this change would simplify the Department's practices in alignment with other agencies. ( printed page 54668)

SECTION 75.210 GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA

Current Regulation: Section 75.210 lists the selection criteria and factors that the Department uses in the peer review process to score applications for discretionary grants.

Proposed Regulation: We propose changes to paragraphs (a) through (i) of § 75.210.

Reasons: We propose making revisions throughout § 75.210 in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) to consistently refer to grant participants as the “target population,” which would ensure alignment of factors throughout § 75.210. Additional proposed changes to these paragraphs would streamline the language of individual factors to remove additional descriptive language to focus the intent.

In paragraph (a), we propose to include the extent to which a problem is being addressed, in addition to the significance of the problem. We propose to broaden the focus to employment and career outcomes in paragraph (a)(2)(iii).

In paragraph (b) we propose to focus paragraph (b)(2)(ii) on the problem to be addressed by the proposed project. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii), we propose to focus on the challenges more broadly, as well as the effective strategies to address said challenges. We propose a new paragraph (b)(2)(xviii) related to the services of high-quality personnel.

In paragraph (c), we propose edits to factors to add emphasis on the role of families in communities and edits for clarity and removal of potential redundancy in language within factors. In paragraph (c)(2)(xvii) we propose edits to focus the priority on academic standards for students. In paragraph (c)(2)(xxi) we propose to revise the factor to clarify the selection of project participants, to align with the merit language being proposed in § 75.500. In paragraph (c)(2)(xxiii) we propose the addition of implementation sites into the consideration of the incorporation of the work beyond the project period.

In paragraphs (d) and (e), we propose to revise paragraph (d)(2) and (e)(2) and to consolidate and remove paragraphs (d)(3) and (e)(3) to align the introduction of these criteria with the other selection criteria in § 75.210. In proposed redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(v), we propose to include technical assistance, in addition to training and professional development services. We also propose revisions to proposed redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(ix) to align more closely with language from the Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness published in the Federal Register April 13, 2026 (91 FR 18780). We propose a new paragraph (d)(2)(xiii) on the use of evidence-based practices in the preparation of high-quality personnel.

In paragraph (e), we propose revisions and a removal of current paragraph (e)(3)(iv) to focus the project personnel criterion on the qualifications of the personnel; as such, we propose to redesignate current paragraph (e)(3)(v) as paragraph (e)(2)(iv). We proposed to add a new paragraph (e)(2)(vi) to align with the merit language being proposed in § 75.500.

In paragraph (f), we propose revisions to emphasize the role of the applicant and contributions of partners in the project as well as a consideration of experiences in the qualifications of personnel.

In paragraph (g), we propose streamlining of paragraph (g)(2)(iv) to focus on the time commitment of the project personnel. Proposed revisions to paragraph (g)(2)(v) align with other proposed revisions to emphasize a focus on the family and community.

In paragraph (h), we propose revisions to factors to specify the level of evidence for which an evaluation is designed to meet, rather than a description of the evidence level without the naming of the evidence level.

In paragraph (i), we propose a revision to paragraph (i)(1) to streamline the paragraph to emphasize the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, without additional qualifiers, like how paragraph (1) is structured in other selection criteria. We propose a revision to paragraph (i)(2)(v) to streamline the factor to focus on the project, which is already inclusive of the scale of that project.

SECTION 75.220 PROCEDURES THE DEPARTMENT USES UNDER § 75.219(a)

Current Regulation: Section 75.220(b)(2) references an employee of the Office of the Finance and Operations (OFO) with responsibility for grants policy to serve on a board to review an application under the special circumstances of § 75.219(a) (The objectives of the project cannot be achieved unless the Secretary makes the grant before the date grants can be made under the procedures in § 75.217).

Proposed Regulation: We propose revising paragraph (b)(2) to remove the reference to a specific office of the Department.

Reasons: Given staffing changes at the Department, this section would be updated to reference the qualifications of the individual instead of naming a specific office in the Department.

SECTION 75.222 PROCEDURES THE DEPARTMENT USES UNDER § 75.219(c)

Current Regulation: Section 75.222 describes the procedures for considering an unsolicited application, including the note accompanying § 75.222 references themailing of an unsolicited application and the address.

Proposed Regulation: Proposed § 75.222 would update the procedures for submitting an unsolicited application.

Reasons: The Department moved away from paper applications and is proposing to move away from physically mailed applications for unsolicited applications.

SECTION 75.224 WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR USING A MULTIPLE TIER REVIEW PROCESS TO EVALUATE APPLICATIONS?

Current Regulation: Section 75.224 outlines the procedures for when a multiple tier review is used.

Proposed Regulation: Proposed § 75.224 would remove reference to the notice publishing in the Federal Register .

Reason: As noted above, this change would simplify the Department's practices in alignment with other agencies.

SECTION 75.228 [DOES NOT EXIST]

Current Regulation: Section 75.228 currently does not exist.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to add a new § 75.228 that would allow the Secretary to provide competitive preference to applicants who propose to charge lower indirect costs than their negotiated rate.

Reason: The proposed revision would provide the Department with greater flexibility to give competitive preference to applicants that propose to charge lower indirect costs to help ensure that Federal funds are directed, to the greatest extent possible, towards the core activities and outcomes of programs.

SECTION 75.230 HOW THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A GRANT

Current Regulation: Section 75.230 outlines how the Secretary selects an application, including the amount of the award.

Proposed Regulation: Proposed § 75.230 would add a new paragraph to clarify that approval of an application does not obligate the Federal Government to provide additional funding for the award in the future. ( printed page 54669)

Reasons: The proposed new paragraph would reflect existing Department practices.

SECTION 75.251 BUDGET PERIODS

Current Regulation: Section 75.251 outlines the process for multi-year projects, including multiple budget periods and a data collection period.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to correct a misspelling in paragraph (b)(2) and add a new paragraph (d) to clarify that the Secretary may consider any unspent or unobligated funds by a grantee in making funds available for multi-year projects, including making adjustments to awards based on an unspent balance.

Reason: The proposed new paragraph adds specificity to the authority that underpins existing Department practices.

SECTION 75.252 [RESERVED]

Current Regulation: Section 75.252 is currently reserved.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to add a new § 75.252 that would clarify the process for frontloading grant funds of a multi-year project.

Reason: The Department can frontload grant funds, but the addition of § 75.252 outlines how it may be done, as well as grantee responsibilities.

SECTION 75.253 CONTINUATION OF A MULTIYEAR PROJECT AFTER THE FIRST BUDGET PERIOD

Current Regulation: Section 75.253 describes the process and requirements for making continuation determinations and setting the amount of continuation awards.

Proposed Regulation: We propose revisions to § 75.253 to clarify the Secretary's authority to make continuation determinations and set continuation award amounts by removing subsection (c), allowing the Secretary to exercise the Secretary's discretion, as well as to clarify the Secretary's existing authority and practice to consider all pieces of relevant available information to inform a continuation determination, including information from the grant application and previous grantee activity. Proposed revisions also include the timing of making a continuation award, the funding for a continuation award, and a further clarification that the provisions of the General Education Provisions Act do not apply to decisions by the Secretary to reduce the amount of a continuation award or to not make a continuation determination.

Reasons: We propose these revisions to § 75.253 to clarify the Secretary's authority to make award decisions, and to clarify the existing practices and agency interpretation that allow the Secretary to rely on additional information in continuation award determinations under § 75.253; our current practices will be codified in § 75.253.

SECTION 75.500 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF INQUIRY, AND FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ON NONDISCRIMINATION

Current Regulation: Section 75.500 outlines the various statutes and regulations with which grantees must comply.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to add a new paragraph (f) that would require grantees to ensure that hiring, admissions, promotions, and compensation practices under the grant are based on merit and high standards, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or proxies thereof unless an appropriate exception applies as a religious organization or an organization engaged in government-ordered remedial action; that the grantee's employment practices do not compel statements of belief in support or opposition to any political views as a condition of continued employment, promotion, admission, project participation, or the delivery of a benefit previously promised or entitled to the employee; and that, where applicable, the grantee has policies protecting freedom of speech, inquiry, and press, association, research as specified and required by § 75.500(a)-(e).

Reasons: The Department believes that the discretionary grants it administers will be most likely to achieve program objectives if awarded to entities that will emphasize merit, ability, and high standards in their hiring practices, as appropriate. In particular, the Department is cognizant of the Congressional directive contained within section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act that the Department “promote educational excellence throughout the Nation” by promoting the ability of program beneficiaries “to meet high standards.” By amending § 75.500 to require all grantees to prioritize merit and high standards throughout their funded project activities, the Department seeks to reinforce its commitment to ensuring excellence as a bedrock component of all Federal education programs.

SECTION 75.684 SEVERABILITY

Current Regulation: Section 75.684 includes language related to severability specific to Subpart E of Part 75.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to remove and reserve § 75.684.

Reasons: Section 75.684 discusses severability specific to Subpart E of Part 75, but proposed § 75.4 would add language about severability applicability to all of Part 75; therefore, severability language for a specific subpart is unnecessary.

SECTION 75.741 SEVERABILITY

Current Regulation: Section 75.741 includes language related to severability specific to Subpart E of Part 75.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to remove and reserve § 75.741.

Reasons: Section 75.741 discussed severability specific to Subpart E of Part 75, but proposed § 75.4 would add language about severability applicability to all of Part 75; therefore, severability language for a specific subpart is unnecessary.

SECTION 75.901 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION

Current Regulation: Section 75.901 indicates that the Secretary may use the Office of Administrative Law Judges to resolve disputes concerning a variety of matters that are not subject to other proceedings.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to revise § 75.901 to provide clear notice to all recipients of the Department's ability to terminate discretionary awards for convenience in a manner consistent with law. Other clarifying edits are proposed in paragraph (a) regarding the other reasons for termination, including for noncompliance, by mutual agreement, upon notification by the recipient or subrecipient, and pursuant to additional terms and conditions included in the Federal award.

Reasons: This proposed clarification is similar to the existing authority at 2 CFR 200.340(a)(4) to terminate awards found to be inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities. It would also be consistent with the long-standing authority to terminate Federal contracts for convenience under the Federal Acquisition Regulations at 48 CFR 49.502 and 52.249-2 and the developing caselaw, as affirmed by recent opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States, that grantee agreements are ultimately contractual in nature.^[2] The proposed changes would ensure that the Department retain ongoing programmatic discretion after an award is made, consistent with law, to ( printed page 54670) terminate a discretionary award for convenience.

Reasons: The proposed revisions are meant to provide additional clarity and authority regarding reasons available to the Department for terminating Federal awards, and to add new provisions regarding temporary suspension generally consistent with parallel procedures for procurement contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These proposed revisions create greater alignment between Federal financial assistance and the long-standing termination for convenience provision applicable to Federal procurement contracts. The goals of these proposed revisions include ensuring that Federal funds are not wasted, projects remain aligned with Department priorities, and recipients remain accountable for delivering projects consistent with public purposes authorized by law.

Part 76 State-Administered Formula Grant Programs

SECTION 76.3 [DOES NOT EXIST]

Current Regulation: Section 76.3 currently does not exist.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to add a new § 76.3, to Subpart A—General, under the heading “Regulations That Apply to State-Administered Programs,” to add a severability provision, to be included in subpart A, which would make clear that, if any part of the proposed regulations in Part 76 is held invalid by a court, the remainder would still be in effect.

Reason: Each of the sections in Part 76 serves one or more important, related but distinct purposes. To best serve these purposes, we would include this administrative provision in the regulations to make clear that the regulations are designed to operate independently of each other and to convey the Department's intent that the potential invalidity of one provision should not affect the remainder. Relatedly, we propose to remove the separate severability provisions specific to Subparts A and G.

SECTION 76.53 SEVERABILITY

Current Regulation: Section 76.53 includes language related to severability specific to Subpart A of Part 76.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to remove and reserve § 76.53.

Reasons: Section 76.53 discusses severability specific to Subpart A of Part 76, but proposed § 76.3 would add language about severability applicability to all of Part 76; therefore, severability language for a specific subpart is unnecessary.

SECTION 76.500 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF INQUIRY, AND FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ON NONDISCRIMINATION

Current Regulation: Section 76.500 outlines the various statutes and regulations with which grantees must comply.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to add a new paragraph (f) that would require grantees to ensure merit practices as part of a grantee's General Administrative Responsibilities.

Reasons: The Department believes that the grants it administers will be most likely to achieve program objectives if awarded to entities that emphasize merit, ability, and rigor in their hiring practices. In particular, the Department is cognizant of the Congressional directive contained within section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act that the Department “promote educational excellence throughout the Nation” by promoting the ability of program beneficiaries “to meet high standards.” By amending § 76.500 to require all grantees to prioritize merit and high standards throughout their funded project activities, the Department seeks to reinforce its commitment to ensuring excellence as a bedrock component of all Federal education programs.

SECTION 76.684 SEVERABILITY

Current Regulation: Section 76.684 includes language related to severability specific to Subpart G of Part 75.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to remove and reserve § 76.684.

Reasons: Section 76.684 discusses severability specific to Subpart G of Part 76, but proposed § 76.3 would add language about severability applicability to all of Part 76; therefore, severability language for a specific subpart is unnecessary.

SECTION 76.700 COMPLIANCE WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, REGULATIONS, STATED INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES, AND APPLICATIONS

Current Regulation: Section 76.700 states that grantees shall comply with and use Federal funds in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and approved applications.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to revise § 76.700 to include Executive orders in addition to statutes, regulations, and approved applications.

Reasons: We propose this revision to align to § 75.700, which includes the requirement for grantees of direct grant programs to comply with Executive orders. It was an oversight that this proposed change was not included in the updates to EDGAR published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2024 (89 FR 70300).

SECTION 76.784 SEVERABILITY

Current Regulation: Section 76.784 includes language related to severability specific to Subpart G of Part 75.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to remove and reserve § 76.784.

Reasons: Section 76.784 discusses severability specific to Subpart G of Part 76, but proposed § 76.3 would add language about severability applicability to all of Part 76; therefore, severability language for a specific subpart is unnecessary.

Part 77 Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations

SECTION 77.1 DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS

Current Regulation: Section 77.1 includes a number of definitions, including certain definitions related to evidence. These definitions support the various sections in EDGAR and are used by the Department in notices where relevant to the specific grant competition.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to revise the definitions of “experimental study,” “moderate evidence,” “national level,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” “regional level,” and “strong evidence” and to add new definitions of “evidence framework” and “frontloading.”

Reasons: The proposed updates to the definitions, including the definitions for the different tiers of evidence, align with the definitions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The proposed addition of the definition for “evidence framework” aligns with the definition in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and Returning Education to the States published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514), and aligns the other definitions to support the proposed “evidence framework” definition. The proposed definition of “frontloading” is to clarify a term used in the proposed § 75.252. The proposed revisions to the definitions of “national level” and “regional level” would remove the example of the groups to streamline the definitions because the Department does not think the examples are necessary in defining the level of scale. ( printed page 54671)

Evidence-Related Definitions

We propose revising the evidence definitions to include a new definition for “evidence framework,” and revising the definitions of “experimental study,” “moderate evidence,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” and “strong evidence.”

The proposed modifications to the definitions of “experimental study,” “moderate evidence,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” and “strong evidence” align the definitions with 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i). The proposed definitions retain the reference to rigorous methodologies and remove references to the What Works Clearinghouse within the definitions for each tier of evidence, to allow for additional approaches that the Department may select for applicants to use to demonstrate that they have met rigorous evidence standards. The new proposed definition for “evidence framework” describes those additional approaches and includes the review aligned with What Works Clearinghouse as one approach that the Department may use to establish that applicants have met rigorous evidence standards. The Department may also consider other methods to verify the rigor of evidence as described in the definition of “evidence framework.”

Part 79 Intergovernmental Review of Department of Education Programs and Activities

SECTION 79.3 WHAT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE SUBJECT TO THESE REGULATIONS?

Current Regulation: Section 79.3 discusses programs and activities subject to intergovernmental review.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to eliminate the requirement for the Secretary to publish the list of grant programs subject to intergovernmental review in application notices in the Federal Register . Instead, intergovernmental review applicability would be included in the application notices.

Reasons: As noted above, this change would simplify the Department's practices in alignment with other agencies.

SECTION 79.6 WHAT PROCEDURES APPLY TO THE SELECTION OF PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES UNDER THESE REGULATIONS?

Current Regulation: Section 79.6 outlines how a State may select a program for intergovernmental review.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to eliminate the requirement for the program or activity to be published in the Federal Register . Instead, the program or activity would be included in application notices.

Reasons: As noted above, this change would simplify the Department's practices in alignment with other agencies.

SECTION 79.8 HOW DOES THE SECRETARY PROVIDE STATES AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE?

Current Regulation: Section 79.8 outlines how the Secretary gives States the opportunity to comment in the intergovernmental review process, including the deadline date for comments.

Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the regulation to remove the reference to publishing in the Federal Register . Instead, the deadline date for comments would be included in application notices.

Reasons: As noted above, this change would simplify the Department's practices in alignment with other agencies.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192

Regulatory Impact Analysis

This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This regulatory action is expected to be considered an “Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.”

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563. We are only issuing the proposed regulations on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their minimal costs. The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We have also determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with these Executive Orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action.

1. Need for Regulatory Action

The Department has identified a need for regulatory action to minimize administrative burden to the public by reducing the number of sources they need to access to view a notice, reduce costs for taxpayers and the Department, and promote efficiency within the Department. See further explanation above in the Reasons section.

2. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers

2.A. Monetized Benefits and Transfers

The Department analyzed the costs and benefits of complying with these regulations. Most of the changes proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking are technical in nature and are unlikely to affect the administration of programs or allocation of benefits in any substantial way. Given the large number of edits proposed herein, we discuss each provision and its likely costs and benefits in turn below. We do not discuss edits proposed for which we are updating citations or cross-references and making other technical edits.

Proposed changes to § 75.4, which would add severability language for all of Part 75 and remove the separate severability language in §§ 75.63, 75.684, and 75.741, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.51, which would more clearly specify what an applicant must provide to prove nonprofit status, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would result in a reduction of administrative burden to the public as well as cost savings to the Department.

Currently, the Department publishes grant application information first to the Federal Register and subsequently to Grants.gov and the Department program websites. The proposed changes to §§ 75.100. 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would streamline this process and reduce administrative burden to potential grant applicants by consolidating grant application notices in fewer locations. Based on the average number of notices inviting application documents published from FY 2021 through FY 2025, the Department estimates that, on average, 84 notices inviting applications are published in the Federal Register each year. We note that the President's FY 2027 Budget Request for the Department of Education ^[3] proposed ( printed page 54672) several program consolidations and eliminations for programs currently administered by the Department. These proposed consolidations and eliminations are not reflected in this Regulatory Impact Analysis. As the Department winds down operations, depending on funding decisions by Congress, estimated outyear benefits may decrease in the future.

The proposed changes to §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would result in reductions to administrative and legal staff hours typically spent on preparing notices inviting applications for the Federal Register . The submission of notices inviting applications to the Federal Register creates immense administrative burdens related to formatting and transmission requirements; every grant competition where a notice inviting applications is no longer submitted to the Federal Register would significantly reduce this burden. Additionally, posting notices inviting applications to the Federal Register creates time delays on public notification of funding opportunities. For each grant competition where a notice inviting applications is no longer submitted to the Federal Register , we assume a program officer at the GS-13/5 level earning a loaded wage rate of $89.49 per hour,^[4] on average, would spend 10 fewer hours per competition ensuring that the notice inviting applications is prepared according to the specific formatting requirements for the Federal Register . Similarly, we also assume that two Department attorneys at the GS-14/5 level (loaded wage rate of $105.75 ⁴ per hour) would spend approximately 2.5 fewer hours each ensuring that each notice inviting applications conforms to Departmental regulatory style guides, based on the Office of the Federal Register requirements. We assume that a senior Department attorney at the GS-15/5 level (loaded wage rate of $127.86 ⁴ ) would no longer spend 10 hours annually reviewing and updating Departmental regulatory style guides specific to notices inviting applications. We also estimate that one management and program analyst at the GS-13/5 level would no longer spend 5 hours per notice inviting applications transmitting the notice to the Federal Register in the appropriate Government Printing Office system. In sum, we estimate that this provision would generate cost savings of approximately $158,451 for the Department per year over the next ten years.

In addition, as required by law, the Department pays the Government Printing Office for each notice inviting applications published in the Federal Register . The cost of publication in the Federal Register is approximately $453 per published Federal Register page.^[5] From FY 2021 through FY 2025, the Department published an estimated average of 84 notices inviting applications per year in the Federal Register . Each notice inviting applications was, on average, 6.34 pages in length. The Department estimates an annual cost of $241,250 per year to publish notices inviting applications in the Federal Register over the next ten years.

In total, the Department estimates net present value benefits of $3,409,531 and $2,807,333 over 10 years at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. This value is equivalent to an annualized benefit of $399,701 per year over 10 years. The Department requests comments on the analysis and estimates contained in this Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Proposed changes to § 75.210, which would streamline word choice are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.220, which would clarify procedures for special circumstances for an application, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.222, which would update the submission process for unsolicited applications, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.228, which would allow the Secretary to give competitive preference to applicants who charge lower indirect costs than their negotiated rate, would provide the Department with greater flexibility to ensure that Federal funds are directed toward the activities and outcomes most central to a program's purpose. This authority would enable the Department to give competitive preference in competitions for applicants who charge lower indirect costs, based on the unique objectives and design of individual grant programs, particularly where program goals are best advanced by maximizing resources available for direct services, evidence-based interventions, capacity-building activities, or other programmatic investments. By establishing the competitive preference in the application notice, applicants would have clear expectations before applying, promoting consistency, fairness, and informed budgeting across all competitors. This flexibility would also strengthen the Department's stewardship of Federal funds by allowing it to align funding structures with program objectives and ensure that available resources are used as effectively as possible to achieve intended outcomes.

As a result of changes to § 75.228 to allow the Secretary to give competitive preference for applicants who charge lower indirect costs, the Department anticipates, within impacted programs, a transfer of grant project fund allocation from the indirect cost budget category to the direct cost budget category. We assume the proposed rule, when implemented by the Secretary, will increase the scope and impact of grant services by shifting funds from general administrative purposes towards core project activities directly related to the goals and objective of the grant award. While we are not able to monetize the scope of the potential benefit, we assume that this transfer will significantly expand the scope and impact of affected programs and therefore significantly improve educational outcomes.

We estimate, for the purposes of establishing a baseline, that the average indirect cost rate for non-restricted rate grant program is 25%.^[6] For all discretionary grantees the average award size is $750,000.^[7] We assume that only $600,000 of each average award is chargeable to the indirect cost rate. Therefore, we establish an average baseline of $150,000 allocated to indirect costs and $450,000 allocated to direct costs for each of the sampled awards.

We are unable to predict to what extent the Secretary will exercise the authority provided under this proposed rule in future years. Therefore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of multiple scenarios that evaluate the potential impact based on the number of new applicants impacted and to what extent the indirect cost rate is lowered ( printed page 54673) below the baseline for a new award grant competition.

For the purposes of this analysis, the Department estimates that if the indirect cost rate for each of these sampled awards were, on average, lowered to 15%, the resulting allocations would be $90,000 to indirect costs and $510,000 for direct costs. This would be a transfer of $60,000 from indirect costs to direct costs per impacted grant award.

We assume that in each of the next 10 years, 750 new grant recipients would apply to programs where the Secretary gives competitive preference for applicants who charge lower indirect costs. Therefore, we estimate an annual transfer of $45,000,000 from indirect costs to direct costs over each of the next 10 years. To the extent that our sample underestimates the average indirect cost rate, the total amount transferred to the direct cost category would increase. The Department requests comments on the analysis and estimates contained in this Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Proposed changes to § 75.230, which would clarify future commitments of the Federal Government for an award, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.251, which would clarify the treatment of unobligated balances on a grant, are unlikely to generate quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.252, which would clarify the use of frontloading, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity and transparency of the Department's authority to frontload grant funds.

Proposed changes to § 75.253, which clarify the Secretary's role in making continuation determinations and the timeline for continuations, are unlikely to generate quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity and transparency of regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.500, which would require assurances from grantees, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 75.901, which would clarify how a grant may be terminated, including termination disputes, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 76.3, which would add severability language for all of Part 76 and remove the separate severability language in §§ 76.43, 76.684, and 76.784, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 76.700, which would add Executive orders to the list of authorities with which grantees must comply, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.

Proposed changes to § 77.1(c), which will apply to any applicant applying to a program that incorporates any of the definitions identified in this notice, would result in cost savings for both applicants and the Department by reducing regulatory burden. As discussed previously in this notice, the proposed changes would update existing definitions and add new definitions, both of which are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and would benefit the public and the Department by improving the clarity and reducing the complexity of the regulations. In total, the Department estimates net present value benefits of $1,589,716 and $1,308,937 over 10 years at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. This value is equivalent to an annualized benefit of $186,363 over 10 years. The regulations are expected to result in estimated annual cost transfers of $45,038,500 over 10 years following publication of these proposed regulations.

As a result of changes to § 77.1(c) to revise evidence definitions, the Department anticipates a reduced burden for applicants to competitive grant competitions. We assume the revised definitions will reduce the complexity of evidence definitions and ultimately reduce the number of hours required to prepare a grant application. The Department estimates 2 fewer hours from a grant writer (education administrator, loaded wage rate of $107.60/hour ^[8] ) for each of the estimated 866 ^[9] applicants applying to a competitive grant competition that requires at least a promising evidence level. In total, the Department estimates reviewing and revising these procedures will reduce costs by approximately $186,363 annually over the next 10 years.

Due to the addition of a new definition for “evidence framework,” in ( printed page 54674) § 77.1(c), the Department anticipates a transfer of burden. Under the new “evidence framework” definition, the burden of evidence reviews could, at the discretion of the Department, shift from Department-funded evidence reviewers to reviewers funded by third parties ( e.g., philanthropy, State educational agencies).

The specific cost transfer would be dependent on how the Department utilizes the additional flexibility provided under the new definition of “evidence framework.” For the purposes of this analysis, the Department estimates, based on administrative data and experience, that the cost of an evidence review is $3,500 per application. We estimate that half (11) of the estimated 22 ^[10] applicants who apply to a competitive grant competition requiring at least a moderate evidence level would rely upon an evidence review not funded by the Department or a study that is already in the What Works Clearinghouse. In total, the Department estimates a cost transfer of $38,500 from the Department to third parties as a result of this new definition. The Department anticipates that taxpayers could realize net savings as a result of this proposed definition.

2.B. Non-Monetized Benefits

The Department believes the proposed changes to §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would yield other real and significant benefits that are not as straightforwardly monetized. The proposed changes would improve the quality of grant applications by ensuring that applicants have a single, definitive source of grant competition information and requirements. The proposed changes would ultimately improve project outcomes and yield significant economic benefit to the public. For example, the Department believes the proposed changes will be particularly beneficial to applicants that have never received a Federal grant award.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

This section considers the effects that the final regulations may have on small entities in the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would not have a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed regulatory action does not contain any information collection requirements.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend parts 3474, and 3485 of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and parts 75, 76, and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 3474 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.;E.O. 13279, 67 FR 77141, 3 CFR, 2002 Comp., p. 258; E.O. 13559, 75 FR 71319, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 273; E.O. 13831, 83 FR 20715, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 806; and 2 CFR part 200, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 3474.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

3. Amend § 3474.10 to read as follows:

4. The authority citation for part 3485 continues to read as follows:

Authority: E.O. 12549 (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235); sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3, and 3474, unless otherwise noted.

5. Amend § 3485.220 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

6. Revise the authority citation for part 75 to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.

Section 75.263 also issued under 2 CFR 200.308(g)(1).

Section 75.617 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3504, 3505.

Section 75.500 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1228a(c).

Section 75.740 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 1232h.

7. Add § 75.4 after § 75.2 to read as follows:

If any provision of this part or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.

8. Amend § 75.51 in paragraph (b) by removing “may” and replacing with “must”.

9. Amend § 75.100 in paragraph (a) by removing “in the Federal Register ”.

10. Amend § 75.104 in paragraph (b) by removing “published in the Federal Register ”.

11. Amend § 75.105 by removing in paragraph (b)(1) “in a notice in the Federal Register , usually”.

12. Amend § 75.118 by revising the cross reference at the end of the section and designating as paragraph (c) to read as follows:

13. Revise § 75.210 to read as follows:

14. Amend § 75.220 in paragraph (b)(2) by removing “Office of Finance and Operations (OFO)” and adding in its place “Department”.

15. Amend § 75.222 by:

a. In the introductory text, removing the words “in the Federal Register ”.

b. Revising the note to read as follows:

16. Amend § 75.224 in paragraph (c)(1) by removing the words “in the Federal Register ”.

17. Add § 75.228 after § 75.227 to read as follows:

18. Amend § 75.230 by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

19. Amend § 75.251 by:

a. In paragraph (b)(2) removing the word “contination” and adding it its place “continuation”.

b. Adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

(d) If it becomes apparent to the Secretary that the amount of Federal funds awarded and available to the grantee for that period, including any unspent balance carried forward from prior periods, exceeds the grantee's needs for that period, the Secretary may adjust the amounts awarded by deobligating the excess.

20. Add § 75.252 after § 75.251 and before § 75.253 to read as follows:

21. Revise § 75.253 to read as follows:

22. Amend § 75.261 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

23. Amend § 75.262 by removing the citation “§ 75.200(b)(4) and (5)” in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b), and adding in its place the citation “§ 75.200(c)(1) and (2)”.

24. Amend § 75.263 by revising the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

25. Amend § 75.500 by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

(f) A grantee must:

(1) Ensure that hiring, admissions, promotions, and compensation practices under the grant are based on merit and high standards, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or proxies thereof unless an appropriate exception applies (such as a religious organization or an organization engaged in remedial action).

(2) Ensure that the grantee's employment practices do not compel statements of belief in support or opposition to any political views as a condition of employment, admission, or project participation, unless an appropriate exception applies.

(3) Ensure that, where applicable, the grantee has policies protecting freedom of speech, inquiry, and press as specified and required by 34 CFR 75.500(a)-(e).

26. Amend § 75.524 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

27. Amend § 75.562 by revising the introductory language of paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

28. Amend § 75.604 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

29. Remove the undesignated “Equipment and Supplies” cross reference section after § 75.617.

30. Remove the undesignated “Other Requirements for Certain Projects” Cross Reference after § 75.626.

31. Remove and reserve § 75.684.

32. Amend § 75.708 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

33. Remove the undesignated Reports cross reference following § 75.714 “Subgrants, contracts, and other agreements with faith-based organizations”.

34. Remove the undesignated “Records Cross Reference” after § 75.721.

35. Remove and reserve § 75.741.

36. Remove the undesignated cross reference following the heading for “Subpart G”.

37. Amend § 75.901 to read as follows:

38. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.

Section 76.101 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 7844(b).

Section 76.127 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.128 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.129 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.130 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.131 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.132 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.134 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.136 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.

Section 76.140 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231g(a), and 3474. ( printed page 54682)

Section 76.301 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 7846(b).

Section 76.401 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231b-2, and 3474.

Section 76.500 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1228a(c).

Section 76.709 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1225(b), and 3474.

Section 76.710 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1225(b), and 3474.

Section 76.720 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474.

Section 76.740 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1232g, 1232h, and 3474.

Section 76.783 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1231b-2.

Section 76.785 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.

Section 76.786 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.

Section 76.787 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.

Section 76.788 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.

Section 76.901 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1234.

39. Add § 76.3 after § 76.2 to read as follows:

If any provision of this part or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.

40. Amend § 76.50 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

41. Amend § 76.500 by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

(f) A grantee must:

(1) Ensure that hiring, admissions, promotions, and compensation practices under the grant are based on merit and qualification, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or proxies thereof unless an appropriate exception applies such as a religious organization or an organization engaged in remedial action.

(2) Ensure that the grantee's employment practices do not compel statements of belief in support or opposition to any political views as a condition of employment, admission, or project participation, unless an appropriate exception applies.

(3) Ensure that that, where applicable, the grantee has policies protecting freedom of speech, inquiry, and press as specified and required by 34 CFR 75.500(a)-(e).

42. Revise § 76.700 to read as follows:

43. Amend § 76.720 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

44. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.

45. Amend § 77.1 in paragraph (c) by:

a. Adding the definition of “Evidence framework”;

b. Revising the definition of “Experimental study”;

c. Adding the definition of Frontloading”;

d. Revising the definition of “Moderate evidence”;

e. Revising the definition of “National level”;

f. Revising the definition of “Promising evidence”;

g. Revising the definition of “Quasi-experimental design study”;

h. Revising the definition of “Regional level”;

i. Revising the definition of “Subgrant”; and

j. Revising the definition of “Strong evidence”.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

46. Amend § 79.3 in paragraph (a) by removing “in the Federal Register ”.

47. Amend § 79.6 in paragraph (a) by removing “in the Federal Register ”.

48. Amend § 79.8 in paragraph (b)(2) by removing “in the Federal Register ”.

91 FR 54666