C.F.R. » Title 34 » PART 75—DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS › Subpart C—How To Apply for a Grant

34 C.F.R. § 75.105

Annual absolute, competitive preference, and invitational priorities

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) What programs are covered by this section? This section applies to any program for which the Secretary establishes priorities for selection of applications in a particular fiscal year.

(b) How does the Secretary establish annual priorities? (1) The Secretary establishes final annual priorities by publishing the priorities in a notice in the Federal Register, usually in the application notice for that program.

(2) The Secretary publishes proposed annual priorities for public comment, unless:

(i) The final annual priorities will be implemented only through invitational priorities (Cross-reference: See 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1));

(ii) The final annual priorities are chosen from a list of priorities already established in the program's regulations;

(iii) Publishing proposed annual priorities would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;

(iv) The program statute requires or authorizes the Secretary to establish specified priorities;

(v) The annual priorities are chosen from allowable activities specified in the program statute; or

(vi) The final annual priorities are developed under the exemption from rulemaking for the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority pursuant to section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1), or an exemption from rulemaking under section 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1481(d), section 191 of the Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581, or any other applicable exemption from rulemaking.

(c) How does the Secretary implement an annual priority? The Secretary may choose one or more of the following methods to implement an annual priority:

(1) Invitations. The Secretary may simply invite applications that meet a priority. If the Secetary chooses this method, an application that meets the priority receives no competitive or absolute preference over applications that do not meet the priority.

(2) Competitive preference. The Secretary may give one of the following kinds of competitive preference to applications that meet a priority.

(i) The Secretary may award some or all bonus points to an application depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority. These points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the selection criteria (see § 75.200(b)). The notice states the maximum number of additional points that the Secretary may award to an application depending upon how well the application meets the priority.

(ii) The Secretary may select an application that meets a priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority.

(3) Absolute preference. The Secretary may give an absolute preference to applications that meet a priority. The Secretary establishes a separate competition for applications that meet the priority and reserves all or part of a program's funds solely for that competition. The Secretary may adjust the amount reserved for the priority after determining the number of high-quality applications received.

[46 FR 3205, Jan. 14, 1981, as amended at 57 FR 30337, July 8, 1992; 60 FR 63873, Dec. 12, 1995; 89 FR 70320, Aug. 29, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 621 F. Supp. 1296 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 621 F. Supp. 1296 (N.D. Ill. 1985). · cites it 9× “( 34 C.F.R. § 75.105 ; Board Ex. 142, 49 Fed.”
United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 588 F. Supp. 132 (N.D. Ill. 1984). · cites it 3× “Certain provisions of Secretary’s Education Department General Administrative Regulations (“EDGAR”), including the provisions at 34 C.F.R. § 75.105 that permit him to establish program priorities, competitive preferences and absolute preferences, apply to the Title IV grant…”
State of California v. US Dep't of Educ., 132 F.4th 92 (1st Cir. 2025). “See 34 C.F.R. § 75.105 (b) (2024). The States claim other failings in the Department's termination of the ongoing grants.”
United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 567 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Ill. 1983). “34 C.F.R. 75.105(c)(2), 75.105(c)(3). Nothing in the Education Department’s General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which govern grants made out of the Secretary’s Discretionary Fund, would prevent the Secretary from making an award to Board.”
Council for Opportunity in Educ. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 2× “§ 553 ; see also 34 C.F.R. § 75.105 (b). As programs receiving federal funds, TRIO programs are also subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 75.105(c)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 567 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Ill. 1983). “34 C.F.R. 75.105(c)(2), 75.105(c)(3). Nothing in the Education Department’s General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which govern grants made out of the Secretary’s Discretionary Fund, would prevent the Secretary from making an award to Board.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.