Proposed Rule2023-03670
Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant Programs
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 22, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Education (we or the Department) proposes to rescind regulations related to religious student organizations at certain public institutions of higher education (IHEs) that prescribe a novel role for the Department in enforcing grant conditions related to religious student organizations. These regulations apply to public IHEs that receive a direct grant from the Department or a subgrant from a State-administered formula grant program of the Department. The Department proposes to rescind the regulations because they are not necessary to protect the First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion; have created confusion among institutions; and prescribe an unduly burdensome role for the Department to investigate allegations regarding IHEs' treatment of religious student organizations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10857-10864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03670]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 75 and 76
[Docket ID ED-2022-OPE-0157]
RIN 1840-AD72
Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant Programs
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (we or the Department)
proposes to rescind regulations related to religious student
organizations at certain public institutions of higher education (IHEs)
that prescribe a novel role for the Department in enforcing grant
conditions related to religious student organizations. These
regulations apply to public IHEs that receive a direct grant from the
Department or a subgrant from a State-administered formula grant
program of the Department. The Department proposes to rescind the
regulations because they are not necessary to protect the First
Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion; have
created confusion among institutions; and prescribe an unduly
burdensome role for the Department to investigate allegations regarding
IHEs' treatment of religious student organizations.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 24, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. However, if you require an accommodation
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, please
contact the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted 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.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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''.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information about themselves that they wish to
make publicly available. Commenters should not include in their
comments any information that identifies other individuals or that
permits readers to identify other individuals. If, for example, your
comment describes an experience of someone other than yourself, please
do not identify that individual or include information that would allow
readers to identify that individual. The Department will not make
comments that contain personally identifiable information (PII) about
someone other than the commenter publicly available on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> for privacy reasons. This may include comments
where the commenter refers to a third-party individual without using
their name if the Department determines that the comment provides
enough detail that could allow one or more readers to link the
information to the third party. If your comment refers to a third-party
individual, to help ensure that your comment is posted, please consider
submitting your comment anonymously to reduce the chance that
information in your comment about a third party could be linked to the
third party. The Department will also not make comments that contain
threats of harm to another person or to oneself available on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Clark, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 2C185, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-7977. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#305143585c55491e535c51425b7055541e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29485a41454c50074a45485b42694c4d074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to clearly
identify the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we can
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs
and activities. Please also feel free to offer for our consideration
any alternative approaches to the subjects addressed by the proposed
regulations.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
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 these proposed regulations. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 10858]]
Background
2020 Regulatory Action
Executive Order (E.O.) 13864, Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency,
and Accountability at Colleges and Universities,\1\ issued on March 21,
2019, requires relevant agencies to take appropriate steps to ensure
that institutions of higher education that receive Federal research or
education grants promote free inquiry (described in the E.O. as
fostering ``environments that promote open, intellectually engaging,
and diverse debate''), including through compliance with applicable
Federal laws and regulations. E.O. 13864 further provides that the
terms ``Federal research or education grants'' do not, for purposes of
the order, include funding associated with Federal student aid programs
that cover tuition, fees, or stipends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 FR 11401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
January 17, 2020 (2020 NPRM).\2\ In the 2020 NPRM, the Department
relied upon the United States Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Trinity
Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,\3\ the United States
Attorney General's October 6, 2017, memorandum on Federal Law
Protections for Religious Liberty,\4\ E.O. 13798, ``Promoting Free
Speech and Religious Liberty,'' dated May 4, 2017,\5\ and E.O. 13831,
``Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative,''
dated May 3, 2018.\6\ The 2020 NPRM proposed, among other things, to
add material conditions relating to First Amendment freedoms, including
the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, to Department
grants. Specifically, the 2020 NPRM proposed to impose a grant
condition on grantees to comply with the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, in the case of public IHEs, or stated institutional
policies regarding freedom of speech, in the case of private IHEs. The
2020 NPRM explained that, if there is a final, non-default judgment
that an IHE had violated the First Amendment or such institutional
policies, the Department would consider that grantee to be in violation
of a material condition of the grant and may pursue available remedies
for noncompliance.\7\ Finally, it proposed to add a material grant
condition prohibiting public IHEs from denying to a religious student
organization at the public institution any right, benefit, or privilege
that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the
institution because of the religious student organization's beliefs,
practices, policies, speech, membership standards, or leadership
standards of the religious student organization. However, the 2020 NPRM
did not describe how the Department would determine if an IHE is out of
compliance with this particular condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 85 FR 3190.
\3\ 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017).
\4\ Office of the Attorney General. ``Memorandum for All
Executive Departments and Agencies''. Department of Justice, October
6, 2017: <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001891/download">https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001891/download</a>.
\5\ 82 FR 21675.
\6\ 83 FR 20715. This E.O. was revoked on February 14, 2021, by
86 FR 10007.
\7\ 85 FR 3196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 23, 2020, the Department published the final rule,
which became effective on November 23, 2020 (2020 final rule).\8\ As
proposed in the 2020 NPRM, the 2020 final rule added provisions related
to free inquiry (Sec. 75.500(b) and (c) for Direct Grant Programs, and
Sec. 76.500(b) and (c) for State-Administered Formula Grant Programs),
making it a material condition of these Department grants that public
IHEs receiving these grants comply with the First Amendment and private
institutions receiving these grants follow their stated institutional
policies on freedom of speech, including academic freedom. Furthermore,
the 2020 final rule added a third condition (Sec. 75.500(d) for Direct
Grant Programs and Sec. 76.500(d) for State-Administered Formula Grant
Programs) prohibiting public IHEs from denying to any student
organization whose stated mission is religious in nature at the public
institution any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded
to other student organizations at the institution because of the
religious student organization's beliefs, practices, policies, speech,
membership standards, or leadership standards informed by sincerely-
held religious beliefs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 85 FR 59916. The Department also published a document
with two technical corrections on November 6, 2020, see 85 FR 70975.
\9\ In the final rule, the Department revised the language in
Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) to clarify that religious student
organizations include any student organization whose stated mission
is religious in nature and that the public institution cannot deny
any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other
student organizations because of the religious student
organization's beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership
standards, or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely
held religious beliefs: ``As a material condition of the
Department's grant, each grantee that is a public institution shall
not deny to any student organization whose stated mission is
religious in nature and that is at the public institution any right,
benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other student
organizations at the public institution (including but not limited
to full access to the facilities of the public institution,
distribution of student fee funds, and official recognition of the
student organization by the public institution) because of the
religious student organization's beliefs, practices, policies,
speech, membership standards, or leadership standards, which are
informed by sincerely held religious beliefs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2020 final rule states that an IHE will be determined to have
violated the grant conditions in Sec. Sec. 75.500(b) and (c) and
76.500(b) and (c) only if a State or Federal court issues a final, non-
default judgment against a public IHE for violating the First Amendment
or against a private IHE for violating stated institutional policies.
In the 2020 NPRM and 2020 final rule, the Department stated that such
judgments would be a necessary precondition of enforcing the grant
conditions because State and Federal courts are the appropriate
arbiters of alleged free speech violations.\10\ The 2020 final rule
further stated, ``State and Federal courts have a well-developed body
of case law concerning First Amendment freedoms as well as breach of
contract cases or other claims that may be brought with respect to
stated institutional policies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 85 FR 3213 and 85 FR 59921.
\11\ 85 FR 59921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the 2020 final rule concerning these conditions, the
Department's role is deciding whether and to what extent to impose
additional penalties where such court judgments have been rendered,
including, but not limited to, withholding Federal grant funding.\12\
The preamble to the 2020 final rule stated that if a court issues such
a judgment against a public IHE for violating the First Amendment or a
private IHE for violating stated institutional policies, the
institution must submit to the Secretary a copy of the judgment within
45 days, and the Department may pursue remedies to address
noncompliance with a grant condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike with Sec. Sec. 75.500(b) and (c) and 76.500(b) and (c),
action by the Department on Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) is not
tied to a court judgment. When responding to public comments in the
2020 final rule, the Department concluded that ``[w]hether religious
student organizations are denied the rights, benefits, and privileges
as other student organizations is a discrete issue that the Department
may easily investigate.'' \13\ The 2020 final rule did not provide any
further information as to the procedures the Department would use to
investigate this grant condition. On November 25, 2020, the Department
published a
[[Page 10859]]
separate Notice of Reporting Process to provide additional information
on Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d).\14\ In that notice, the
Department provided an email address for anyone to report alleged
violations of this grant condition to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 85 FR 59944-45.
\14\ Notice of Reporting Process, 85 FR 75311 (November 25,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2020 NPRM, the Department's stated goals for promulgating
the regulations included ensuring that institutions that receive
Federal funds from the Department promote free inquiry, free
expression, and academic freedom, and protecting free speech on college
campuses.\15\ The Department stated that the proposed regulations would
apply to all such institutions because the denial of free inquiry is
harmful at all institutions.\16\ The Department reiterated these goals
and views in promulgating the 2020 final rule.\17\ The Department
further stated that, in regard to religious student organizations, the
final regulations help ensure that religious organizations as well as
their student members fully retain their right to free exercise of
religion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 85 FR 3196.
\16\ Id.
\17\ 85 FR 59924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of the 2020 Regulations
On August 19, 2021, the Department issued a blog post announcing
that we were conducting a review of these regulations while keeping in
mind the importance of several key elements, including First Amendment
protections, nondiscrimination requirements, and the promotion of
inclusive learning environments for all students.\18\ We stated in our
blog post that the First Amendment requires that public colleges and
universities not infringe upon students' rights to engage in protected
free speech and religious exercise and emphasized our long-held and
continuing view that ``[p]rotecting First Amendment freedoms on public
university and college campuses is essential.'' We also emphasized that
public colleges and universities generally may not deny student
organizations access to school-sponsored forums because of the groups'
religious or nonreligious viewpoints and recognized that IHEs receiving
Federal financial assistance must comply with applicable Federal
statutes and regulations that prohibit discrimination. The Department
further recognized that IHEs, their students, and the courts have
historically been responsible for resolving disputes relating to these
complex matters where these important principles intersect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Cooper, Michelle Asha. ``Update on the Free Inquiry Rule,''
Department of Education Homeroom Blog (Aug. 19, 2021), <a href="https://blog.ed.gov/2021/08/update-on-the-free-inquiry-rule/">https://blog.ed.gov/2021/08/update-on-the-free-inquiry-rule/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the review, the Department conducted outreach and held
meetings with: (1) higher education and institutional stakeholders,
including organizations representing public institutions; (2) faith-
based organizations, including organizations representing religious
IHEs; and (3) organizations that advocate for civil rights and civil
liberties. The purpose of the meetings was to hear from impacted groups
that had diverging perspectives in their comments on the proposed
provisions in the 2020 NPRM. Institutional stakeholders raised concerns
that, under Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d), the Department's
contemplated role would undermine individual institutions' ability to
tailor their policies to best meet the needs of their student
populations and campuses within existing legal constraints. They
believe that the appropriate level of decision-making should remain at
the institutional level, with the entities best positioned to ensure
respect for religious expression and exercise and protection against
unlawful discrimination for students on campuses. Some faith-based and
civil rights organizations raised concerns that Sec. Sec. 75.500(d)
and 76.500(d) create confusion about the interplay between these
regulations and other nondiscrimination requirements. In particular,
those organizations worried that Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d)
could be interpreted to require IHEs to go beyond what the First
Amendment mandates and allow religious student groups to discriminate
against vulnerable and marginalized students. The Department also heard
from representatives of other faith-based organizations that believe
that the regulations fairly state current law, provide needed
protections for students of all faiths, and ensure religious students
feel welcome on public college campuses.
Having reconsidered the regulations after hearing from
stakeholders, including reconsidering the potential confusion among
institutions and burdensome role for the Department, we propose to
rescind the provisions added by the 2020 final rule to Sec. Sec.
75.500(d) and 76.500(d).
We also heard concerns from stakeholders about Sec. Sec. 75.500(b)
and (c) and 76.500(b) and (c). To date, the Department has not received
notice of any final non-default judgments that might trigger those
provisions, nor has it received evidence regarding the intended impact
of these components. For those reasons, we are not proposing to modify
those paragraphs in this rulemaking, but we are publishing a separate
request for information to further inform our review of these
components and our implementation of applicable grant programs.
We discuss substantive issues below. We have grouped our discussion
of Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) together because we are proposing
the same changes to the grant conditions of Direct Grant Programs (Part
75) and State-Administered Grant Programs (Part 76). Generally, we do
not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or
otherwise minor in effect.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ We do not propose to change any provisions from the 2020
final rule not discussed below. Additionally, we do not propose to
change any regulations issued as part of the Dec 17, 2020, joint
rulemaking (85 FR 82037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) Public Institutions and Religious
Student Organizations
Statute: The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provides
general authority to the Secretary to ``make, promulgate, issue,
rescind, and amend rules and regulations'' governing applicable
programs run by the Department.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Regulations: Section 75.500(d) requires, as a material
condition of receiving a grant, that public IHEs that are grantees of a
direct grant program not deny any religious student organization any
right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other
student organizations because of the religious student organization's
beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership standards, or
leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely-held religious
beliefs. Likewise, section 76.500(d) requires, as a material condition
of receiving a grant, that a State or public institution that is a
subgrantee not deny to any religious student organization any right,
benefit, or privilege that is afforded to other student organizations
because of the religious student organization's beliefs, practices,
policies, speech, membership standards, or leadership standards, which
are informed by sincerely-held religious beliefs. To enforce these
portions of the rule, the Department created an email address that
anyone may use to report alleged violations of this provision.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Notice of Reporting Process, 85 FR 75311 (November 25,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to rescind Sec. Sec.
75.500(d) and 76.500(d).
[[Page 10860]]
Reasons: The Department deeply values religious liberty and free
expression. Public IHEs are rightly required to comply with First
Amendment guarantees, including the free exercise of religion.
Rescinding these regulations would not affect those requirements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972) (noting
that ``state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from
the sweep of the First Amendment''); Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 822
(1995)(noting that the University is an instrumentality of the
Commonwealth and ``thus bound by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purported function of Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) is to
help ensure that public educational institutions do not discriminate
against religious organizations in a way the Constitution forbids. As
the Department explained in the preamble to the 2020 final rule, those
provisions were promulgated in order to ``reinforce the First
Amendment's mandate that public institutions treat religious student
organizations the same as other student organizations'' (emphasis
added).\23\ The preamble to the 2020 final rule further states that the
Free Exercise Clause `` `protect[s] religious observers against unequal
treatment' and subjects laws that target the religious for `special
disabilities' based on their `religious status' '' to the strictest
scrutiny (emphasis added).\24\ Accordingly, Sections 75.500(d) and
76.500(d), we explained, ``are designed to bolster these protections
and prevent public institutions from denying rights, benefits, and
privileges to religious student organizations because of their
religious character'' \25\ (emphasis added). ``Ultimately, Sec. Sec.
75.500(d) and 76.500(d) clarify that public institutions allowing
student organizations to restrict membership or hold certain standards
for leadership may not implement non-neutral policies that single out
religious student organizations for unfavorable treatment.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 85 FR 59942; and see also id. at 59943 (``these regulations
are necessary to make the guarantees in the First Amendment,
including the Free Exercise Clause, a reality at public
institutions''); id. at 59944 (``Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d)
. . . are rooted in the First Amendment [and] do not apply to
private institutions because private institutions are not bound by
the First Amendment'').
\24\ Id. at 59942 (quoting Trinity Lutheran, 137 S. Ct. at
2019).
\25\ Id. at 59943. See also id. at 59940.
\26\ Id. at 59939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the 2020 NPRM, several commenters raised concerns
that, despite this nondiscrimination objective, the regulations
themselves could be read to require IHEs to afford preferential
treatment to religious student groups and would prohibit IHEs from
applying neutral, generally-applicable nondiscrimination policies that
would otherwise be compliant with the First Amendment. Throughout the
preamble and in response to those comments, the Department repeatedly
asserted that Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) do not afford any
preferences to religious organizations.\27\ The Department explained
that the imposition of this grant condition was meant to be consistent
with the First Amendment because the regulations ``do not prohibit
public colleges and universities from implementing all-comers policies,
nor do they bar these institutions from applying neutral, generally-
applicable policies to religious student organizations.'' \28\ The
preamble provided examples of what the Department considered to be
``true'' or ``authentic'' all-comers policies, while acknowledging that
such policies are permitted but not required by the Constitution.\29\
In the preamble, the Department similarly asserted that public IHEs may
apply neutral, generally-applicable policies to religious student
organizations in a nondiscriminatory manner without risking any
disqualification for the covered Department grants.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., id. at 59938 (``the rule mandates equal
treatment for religious student organizations as compared to their
secular counterparts; these final regulations do not favor or
disfavor religious student organizations or any particular
religion''); id. at 59939 (``The final regulations would not, as one
commenter suggested, mandate preferential treatment for religious
student organizations . . . . Here, the Department requires parity
among all organizations . . . . A public institution . . . may adopt
. . . generally-applicable policies with respect to student
organizations as long as such policies apply equally to all student
organizations, including religious student organizations. None of
these scenarios give religious student organizations an exemption or
preferential treatment, but merely equal treatment, which is
required under the First Amendment.''); id. at 59940 (``The
Department reiterates that the final regulations do not mandate
preferential treatment for faith-based student organizations;
instead, the regulatory text requires that religious student
organizations not be denied benefits given to any other student
group because of their religious nature. Therefore, rather than
giving religious student organizations special treatment, the
regulation explicitly requires the opposite outcome--that religious
student organizations at public institutions be afforded equal
treatment.'').
\28\ 85 FR 59939. See also id. at 59940 (``withholding funds
from any student organization under a neutral rule of general
applicability is not constitutionally suspect or prohibited under
these final regulations'').
\29\ The preamble to the 2020 final rule stated that a ``true
all-comers policy'' or ``authentic all-comers policy'' is limited to
one that ``applies equally to all student organizations and which
requires all student organizations to allow any student to
participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the
organization, regardless of the student's status or beliefs.'' 85 FR
at 59939. As an example, the Department previously articulated a
view that, under a ``true all-comers policy,'' ``pro-choice groups
could not bar leadership positions from pro-life individuals; Muslim
groups could not bar leadership positions from non-Muslims; the
feminist group could not bar leadership positions from misogynists;
and so on.'' Id.
\30\ See id. at 59943 (``[T]hese final regulations would not
interfere with an institution's ability to enforce an anti-hazing
policy, because such a policy would be a neutral, generally-
applicable rule applied to all student groups.''); see also id. at
59940 (asserting that ``Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) do not
enable religious student organizations to discriminate on the basis
of protected classes''). Separately, the Notice of Reporting Process
published after the 2020 final rule took the position that a ``non-
discrimination policy with enumerated protected classes is not an
all-comers policy and, therefore, cannot be applied to prohibit
religious student organizations from having faith-based membership
or leadership criteria.'' 85 FR 75311. The Notice of Reporting
Process did not however explain the relationship between this
statement and the statements in the preamble expressly permitting
IHEs to apply neutral and generally-applicable policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the regulatory language the Department adopted in
Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) does not expressly reflect that the
material condition required by those sections is merely a
nondiscrimination requirement, nor does it specify that IHEs may apply
neutral and generally-applicable rules to religious student
organizations. To the contrary, the regulations state that, as a
material condition of a covered Department grant, a public institution
shall not deny any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise
afforded to other student organizations at the public institution ``to
any student organization whose stated mission is religious in nature''
not only on the basis of the organization's status, beliefs and speech,
but also ``because of . . . [its] practices, policies . . . membership
standards, or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely-
held religious beliefs.'' There is nothing in the regulatory text that
clarifies or guarantees that an institution may insist that such
religious organizations comply with the same neutral and generally-
applicable practices, policies, and membership and leadership standards
that apply equally to nonreligious student organizations, including but
not limited to nondiscrimination requirements.
The disparity between the language of the regulatory text and the
Department's stated intent has engendered confusion and uncertainty
about what institutions must do to avoid risking ineligibility for
covered Department grants. As part of our review described in the
August 2021 blog post, the Department conducted outreach and listening
sessions with institutional stakeholders and representatives of faith-
based communities. Many of those stakeholders voiced confusion about
the
[[Page 10861]]
interplay between these regulations and other nondiscrimination
requirements, including the longstanding requirements to comply with
Federal civil rights laws and regulations, which both Sec. Sec.
75.500(a) and 76.500(a) acknowledge. Institutional stakeholders raised
concerns about the regulations when commenting on the 2020 NPRM and
have continued to express concerns about Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and
76.500(d). Their concerns include that the regulations are confusing
and may conflict with institutional and State nondiscrimination
policies, and that the Department's approach reduces institutions'
ability to set individualized policies that protect First Amendment
freedoms and reflect the diversity of institutional contexts and
missions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The Department is also currently a defendant in litigation
challenging the material condition added by this provision. In
January 2021, the Secular Student Alliance, a nonprofit
organization, and Declan A. Galli, a student at California
Polytechnic State University, sued the Department, alleging that the
Department lacked statutory authority to issue this provision, that
the provision violates the First Amendment by granting preferential
treatment to religious student organizations because it allegedly
bars public institutions from requiring religious student
organizations to comply with nondiscrimination requirements, and
that the Department did not adequately respond to comments during
the rulemaking process. See Complaint, Secular Student Alliance et
al. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 21-cv-00169 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, despite the stated purpose of these regulations, the
Department has not observed that they have meaningfully increased
protections of First Amendment rights for religious student
organizations or campus administrators since the rule went into effect.
If IHEs do discriminate against religious student organizations on
the basis of the organizations' beliefs or character, such
organizations can and do seek relief in Federal and State courts, which
have longstanding expertise in and responsibility for protecting rights
under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, including in cases
where there are complex, fact-dependent disputes about whether a policy
is neutral and generally-applicable.\32\ Thus, while the Department
certainly shares the view that public schools should not treat
religious student organizations worse than other student organizations,
we do not, at this time, believe that a threat of remedial action with
respect to the Department's grants is necessary ``to make the
guarantees of the First Amendment, including the Free Exercise Clause,
a reality at public institutions.'' \33\ The Department welcomes
evidence from the public regarding whether maintaining a condition
specifically for institutions that receive Department grants has
provided any additional protections of the First Amendment rights of
religious student organizations at public institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln et al. v. Members of the Board of Regents of the University
of Nebraska et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-03301 (Oct. 27, 2021)
(Complaint) (challenging application of campus speaker policy and
alleging refusal to fund event because of student organization's
Christian viewpoint); Ratio Christi at the University of Houston-
Clear Lake et al. v. Khator et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-03503 (S.D.
Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) (Complaint) (challenging university refusal to
recognize religious student group allegedly based on its religious
beliefs and leadership requirements); InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship/USA v. Bd. of Governors of Wayne State Univ., 534 F.
Supp. 3d 785, 825 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (finding that university's
revocation of Christian student organization's recognized status was
not neutral and violated organization's First Amendment rights).
\33\ 85 FR at 59943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now find reason to question the conclusions in the preamble to
the 2020 final rule that the types of investigations the Department
would undertake would be ``limited in scope'' and be ``similar to the
types of investigations that the Department currently conducts.'' \34\
The First Amendment is a complex area of law with an intricate body of
relevant case law.\35\ Closely contested cases, such as those in which
there is some uncertainty about whether a public institution's policy
is neutral and generally-applicable or about whether the institution
has applied such policies without discriminating on the basis of a
religious organization's beliefs or character, are typically very fact-
intensive, and litigated thoroughly through the courts. A proper review
of an alleged violation could require the Department to devote
extensive resources to investigate the allegation given the nature of
these cases.\36\ Therefore, even if the Department revised the
regulations to clarify this confusion, we would still be concerned that
enforcement would be overly burdensome for the Department. Although the
Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has expertise and
responsibility for investigating claims of discrimination under the
Federal civil rights statutes it is authorized to enforce, no office in
the Department has historically been responsible for investigating
First Amendment violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Cf. 85 FR 59945 (making similar observations in the context
of discussing the 2020 rule's provisions concerning free speech).
\35\ Id. at 59919, 59922-23.
\36\ For example, a recent decision against the University of
Iowa for selective enforcement of a non-discrimination policy
against a religious group awarded plaintiffs $533,508 in attorney's
fees and expenses to cover an estimated 873 billed hours. See
Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, et al. v. The University of Iowa,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00080 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 18, 2021) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in the 2020 final rule, we stated we believed that
investigating First Amendment claims generally would be unduly
burdensome and unnecessary in light of the existing First Amendment
protections afforded by the Constitution and adjudicated through the
courts.\37\ Prior to the 2020 final rule, the Department's longstanding
practice was to defer to courts to adjudicate First Amendment matters,
including those involving religious student organizations, and to order
appropriate remedies without Departmental involvement.\38\ Those
remedies may include, if the court deems appropriate, injunctive relief
prohibiting the school from violating the plaintiffs' rights in a
similar fashion going forward.\39\ Indeed, for all types of First
Amendment matters, the current regulations at Sec. Sec. 75.500(b) and
76.500(b) indicate that the Department will presume a public
institution to be in compliance with the First Amendment absent a
court's final, non-default judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 85 FR 59923 (In the context of discussing the 2020 rule's
provisions concerning free speech, stating that ``[t]he Department
agrees with commenters who noted that the First Amendment may be a
particularly complex area of law. It is precisely for this reason,
among others, that [the regulation at Sec. 75.500(b) and (c) and
Sec. 76.500(b) and (c)] defers to courts as the adjudicators of
free speech claims against public and private institutions. The
Department believes our judicial system has the requisite expertise
and impartiality to render such important decisions.'').
\38\ See, e.g., Austin v. Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trustees, No.
1:21CV184-MW/GRJ, 2022 WL 195612 at *28 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2022)
(finding conflict-of-interest policy likely violated First Amendment
rights of faculty and staff and enjoining university from enforcing
it); Bus. Leaders in Christ v. Univ. of Iowa, 360 F. Supp. 3d 885,
909 (S.D. Iowa 2019) (finding policy violated First Amendment rights
and issuing permanent injunction preventing university from
enforcing policy against religious student group based on the
content of statement of faith and leadership selection policies);
Coll. Republicans at San Francisco State Univ. v. Reed, 523 F. Supp.
2d 1005, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (concluding that student organization
was likely to prevail on claim that civility provisions of student
code of conduct offended the First Amendment and enjoining
university from basing any disciplinary proceedings on the ground
that the conduct in issue was not ``civil''); Bair v. Shippensburg
Univ., 280 F. Supp. 2d 357, 372-73 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (concluding that
the university speech code likely violated the First Amendment and
granting preliminary injunction to protect students' rights).
\39\ See, e.g., Gerlich v. Leath, 861 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2017);
Just. For All v. Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2005); Moore v.
Watson, 838 F. Supp. 2d 735 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, and after reconsidering this issue, the
Department proposes to rescind Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d),
which would eliminate the confusion caused by the 2020 final rule and
leave adjudication of these complex
[[Page 10862]]
and important constitutional questions to the institutions themselves,
their communities, and the judiciary. This rescission would thus return
the Department to its longstanding role in this area.
This rescission would not alter the Department's commitment to
religious freedom, which is enshrined in the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution as a fundamental human right that contributes to the
vibrancy, diversity, and strength of our nation. President Biden has
emphasized the importance of this freedom repeatedly. As he has said,
``ensuring freedom of religion remains as important as ever'' today,
and ``the work of protecting religious freedom, for people of all
faiths and none, is never finished.'' \40\ A rescission of this rule
also would not alter the Department's commitment to emphasize the
importance of First Amendment protections, including religious freedom
protections, at public IHEs. The Department will continue to encourage
all IHEs to protect students' opportunities to associate with fellow
members of their religious communities, to share the tenets of their
faith with others, and to express themselves on campus about religious
and nonreligious matters alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Statement by President-elect Biden on Religious Freedom
Day. The American Presidency Project. January 16, 2021, <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-president-elect-biden-religious-freedom-day?msclkid=d7438aa6aa0211ecb203ca81d166d3c2">https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-president-elect-biden-religious-freedom-day?msclkid=d7438aa6aa0211ecb203ca81d166d3c2</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that these proposed regulations are
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated
with this regulatory action are those resulting from IHEs reviewing
regulations to ensure they are appropriately administering the
Department's programs and activities.
Students and public IHEs would benefit from the rescission of
Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) because it would reduce stakeholder
confusion about what policies are allowable. Rescinding these
provisions would also reduce burdens on the Department.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The Department has analyzed the costs and benefits of complying
with these proposed regulations. Rescinding Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and
76.500(d) would remove language prohibiting public institutions that
are grantees or subgrantees from denying any religious student
organization any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise
afforded to other student organizations because of the religious
student organization's beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership
standards, or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely-
held religious beliefs as a material condition of the Department's
grants.
Costs to Rescinding the Regulations
For purposes of these estimates, the Department assumes that
approximately 1,217 public IHEs are currently grant recipients under 34
CFR parts 75 and 76. We assume that most activities outlined below
would be conducted by an attorney at a rate of $141.10 per hour.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Estimates based on a median hourly wage for lawyers
employed by colleges, universities, and professional schools, State
government owned from the May 2020 National Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates by ownership, published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/611300_2.htm#23-0000">www.bls.gov/oes/current/611300_2.htm#23-0000</a>). We have
used loaded wage rates, assuming a factor of 2.0 to account for both
the employer cost for employee compensation and overhead costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the cost of reviewing the proposed rule, we assume that
representatives of all 1,217 institutions receiving grants under 34 CFR
parts 75 and 76 will review the proposed and final rules. We estimate
that these reviews will take, on average, a total of one hour per
institution. We estimate a one-time cost of approximately
[[Page 10863]]
$171,719 in total across these grantees to review.
While the Department recognizes that some institutions may take
longer to complete this review, many institutions will likely take less
time, instead relying on high-level summaries or overviews, such as
those produced by a central office for an entire university system. The
current regulations were intended to align with existing constitutional
requirements. As such, rescinding the regulations would have a de
minimis effect on their operations and, therefore, we do not anticipate
a substantial number of entities devoting significant time to reviewing
this proposed rule. We invite comment on whether there are additional
costs that relevant entities may incur related to the rescission of
these regulations.
The Department has not received any complaints regarding alleged
violations of Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) at the time of
publishing this document. Accordingly, we estimate that we will receive
fewer than 5 complaints annually related to alleged violations of this
condition. Additionally, we continue to believe institutions generally
make a good-faith effort to abide by the First Amendment irrespective
of the implementation of the 2020 final rule, and we assume that
compliance with the First Amendment has not generated additional burden
for IHEs.\42\ However, IHEs have expressed confusion about the
interplay of the conditions in paragraph (d) of Sec. Sec. 75.500 and
76.500 and Federal and State nondiscrimination laws, and we do estimate
that this confusion may have generated burden but do not have a
measurable burden estimate at this time. The Department specifically
invites public comment on the extent to which compliance with paragraph
(d) of Sec. Sec. 75.500 and 76.500 of the 2020 final rule have
generated burdens for regulated entities and the likely estimated
number of complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 85 FR 3216-3217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimates that rescinding Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and
76.500(d) would not have costs for students or campus communities. We
have not identified that these provisions have added material
additional protections for student groups whose stated mission is
religious in nature at public IHEs. Therefore, the proposed rescission
would not impose a cost on these communities.
The Department assumes that rescinding Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and
76.500(d) would generate no new burdens or costs aside from those
discussed herein but invites public comment on potential costs or
burdens generated by rescinding these regulations and whether these
provisions have added material protections for religious student groups
at public IHEs.
Benefits To Rescinding the Regulations
Rescinding Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) would reduce the
continued confusion that IHEs and others have cited over how those
paragraphs intersect with First Amendment requirements. We believe this
would benefit IHEs and the students they serve by removing regulations
that create confusion and would instead allow IHEs to design and
enforce policies that best serve their student bodies and that are
consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
Additionally, rescinding these regulations would eliminate the
burden on the Department of Education to investigate alleged First
Amendment violations under Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) and
determine and administer penalties for IHEs that violate grant
conditions under those provisions. First Amendment cases are fact-
specific and would require scrutiny from the Department's Office of
General Counsel and related offices to review complaints to determine
appropriate Departmental action in response to the alleged violations,
and no office in the Department has historically been responsible for
investigating or adjudicating First Amendment violations. The amount of
time needed to review a specific alleged violation would depend upon
the nature of the violation, and therefore we are not able to predict
how much this rescission would decrease the Department's burden.
However, as stated above, the Department has observed that cases can
require a substantial number of hours to adjudicate (as discussed in
footnote 36).
We invite comments on any of the described benefits, including the
potential elimination of confusion related to the requirements outlined
in Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d). We also invite comments that
identify benefits of rescinding Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) that
we have not identified.
Alternatives Considered
The Department considered retaining the existing regulations.
However, upon review of the regulations and hearing from stakeholders,
we propose to rescind the existing regulations in paragraph (d) of
Sec. Sec. 75.500 and 76.500 because we tentatively believe these
provisions' costs outweigh any potential benefits.
We considered revising Sec. Sec. 75.500(d) and 76.500(d) to
clarify that neutral, generally-applicable policies would be
permissible. However, if the regulations were revised in this manner,
the Department would still be responsible for investigating alleged
violations. Instead, we believe the Department should return to our
historical role in which we have not adjudicated alleged violations of
the First Amendment. Courts are better suited to handle such matters.
We invite comments on alternatives that would address the concerns
we have identified about the current regulations.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments
on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand,
including answers to questions such as the following:
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
<bullet> Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
<bullet> Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
<bullet> Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example,
``Sec. 75.500 (b) Public Institutions and the First Amendment.'')
<bullet> Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
<bullet> What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, as the proposed rescission does not modify or change existing
legal requirements for public IHEs. We invite the public to comment on
our certification that these regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 10864]]
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing
status, governing body, and population. Most entities to which the
Office of Postsecondary Education's (OPE) regulations apply are
postsecondary institutions; however, many of these institutions do not
report such data to the Department. As a result, the Department defines
``small entities'' by reference to enrollment,\43\ to allow meaningful
comparison of regulatory impact across all types of higher education
institutions.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Two-year postsecondary educational institutions with
enrollment of less than 500 full-time equivalent (FTE) and four-year
postsecondary educational institutions with enrollment of less than
1,000 FTE.
\44\ In previous regulations, the Department categorized small
businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined ``non-
profit organizations'' as ``small organizations'' if they were
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of
operation, or as ``small entities'' if they were institutions
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000.
Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private
nonprofit organization as small and no public institutions as small.
Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were
considered small if they were independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 IPEDs finance data for proprietary
institutions, 50 percent of 4-year and 90 percent of 2-year or less
proprietary institutions would be considered small. By contrast, an
enrollment-based definition applies the same metric to all types of
institutions, allowing consistent comparison across all types.
Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Type Small Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-year................................ Public.................. 328 1,182 27.75
4-year................................ Public.................. 56 747 7.50
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................. ........................ 384 1,929 19.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018-19 data reported to the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed regulations do not impose or remove information
collection requirements for public institutions. Therefore, the
Paperwork Reduction Act is not implicated.
Intergovernmental Review
These programs are not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Assessment of Education Impact
In accordance with section 411 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the
Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
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.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 75
Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs--education,
Indemnity payments, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Youth organizations.
34 CFR Part 76
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa,
Education, Grant programs--education, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Prisons, Private schools, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands, Youth organizations.
Nasser Paydar,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend parts 75 and 76 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 75--DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 75.500 [Amended]
0
2. Section 75.500 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and
redesignating paragraph (e) as new paragraph (d).
PART 76--STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS
0
3. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 76.500 [Amended]
0
4. Section 76.500 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and
redesignating paragraph (e) as new paragraph (d).
[FR Doc. 2023-03670 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 22, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.