Indian Education Discretionary Grants Program; Professional Development Program and Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program, 22403-22417 [2015-09396]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
authority and/or Regulation Reserve
Sharing Group. These costs represent an
estimate of the costs a small entity could
incur if the entity is identified as an
applicable entity. The Commission does
not consider the estimated cost per
small entity to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The
Commission did not receive any
comments regarding this aspect of the
NOPR. Based on the above, the
Commission certifies that this Final
Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
VIII. Document Availability
55. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
56. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
57. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s Online Support at (202)
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
IX. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
58. This Final Rule is effective June
22, 2015. The Commission has
determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.86 The Commission
will submit the final rule to both houses
86 See
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
of Congress and to the General
Accountability Office.
By the Commission.
Issued: April 16, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
22403
paragraph is corrected to read: ‘‘We
certify that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
[FR Doc. 2015–09227 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am]
Dated: April 16, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
[FR Doc. 2015–09301 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 1 and 16
[Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0050]
Administrative Detention of Drugs
Intended for Human or Animal Use;
Correction
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is correcting a
final rule entitled ‘‘Administrative
Detention of Drugs Intended for Human
or Animal Use’’ that appeared in the
Federal Register of May 29, 2014 (79 FR
30716). The rule sets forth the
procedures for detention of drugs
believed to be adulterated or
misbranded and amends the scope of
FDA’s part 16 regulatory hearing
procedures to include the
administrative detention of drugs. The
rule published with incorrect statements
regarding the impact of the final rule on
small entities. This document corrects
those errors.
DATES: Effective April 22, 2015 and
applicable beginning June 30, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emily Leongini, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32,
Rm. 4339, Silver Spring, MD 20993–
0002, 301–796–5300,
FDASIAImplementationORA@
fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of May 29, 2014, in FR
Doc. 2014–12458, the following
corrections are made:
1. On page 30718, in the third
column, under ‘‘Analysis of Impacts
(Summary of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis),’’ the last sentence of the
second paragraph is corrected to read:
‘‘FDA certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.’’
2. On page 30719, in the first column,
the third sentence of the last full
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Indian Education Discretionary Grants
Program; Professional Development
Program and Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children Program
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
AGENCY:
Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY:
34 CFR Part 263
RIN 1810–AB19
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0365]
AGENCY:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The Secretary amends the
regulations that govern the Professional
Development program and the
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program (Demonstration
Grants program), authorized under title
VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The
regulations govern the grant application
process for new awards for each
program for the next fiscal year in
which competitions are conducted for
that program and subsequent years. For
the Professional Development program,
the regulations enhance the project
design and quality of services to meet
the objectives of the program; establish
post-award requirements; and govern
the payback process for grants in
existence on the date these regulations
become effective. For the Demonstration
Grants program, the regulations add
new priorities, including a priority for
native youth community projects
(NYCPs), and new application
requirements.
SUMMARY:
These regulations are effective
May 22, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Cheek, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room
3W207, Washington, DC 20202–6135.
Telephone: (202) 401–0274 or by email:
john.cheek@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
22404
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
On
December 3, 2014, the Secretary
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for Indian
Education Discretionary Grant
Programs; Professional Development
Program and Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children Program in the Federal
Register (79 FR 71930–71947).
In the preamble of the NPRM, we
discussed on pages 71931 through
71938 the major changes proposed in
that document to improve the
Professional Development program and
the Demonstration Grants program.
These included the following:
• Amending § 263.3 to change the
definitions of ‘‘Indian organization,’’
‘‘induction services,’’ and ‘‘professional
development;’’ and to remove the term,
‘‘undergraduate degree.’’
• Amending § 263.4 to provide
greater detail about the kinds of training
costs that may be covered under the
Professional Development program.
• Amending § 263.5 to revise the
competitive preference priorities for
tribes, Indian organizations, and Indian
institutions of higher education (IHE); to
amend pre-service priorities to include
project-specific goals; and to require
applicants to submit a letter of support
from an entity in the applicant’s service
area agreeing to consider program
graduates for qualifying employment.
• Amending § 263.6 to remove fixed
points assigned to each criterion; to
include in the regulations only programspecific factors and to eliminate the
factors that are separately codified in 34
CFR 75.210; and to revise the selection
criteria.
• Amending § 263.7 to specify that
participants who do not return from a
leave of absence by the end of the grant
period will be considered not to have
completed the program for the purposes
of project performance reporting.
• Amending § 263.8 to consolidate all
of the regulatory provisions that govern
the payback process, currently in
§ 263.8 through § 263.10, into § 263.8.
• Amending § 263.9 to specify the
two types of deferral that are available:
Education and military service; to add a
provision for military deferrals; and to
remove the provision stating that
payback begins within six months of
program completion.
• Amending § 263.10 to eliminate the
work-related payback plan and the
requirement that eligible employment
must be continuous.
• Amending § 263.11 to add a
requirement for grantees to conduct a
payback meeting with each participant;
to require that grantees report
participant and payback information to
the U.S. Department of Education
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
(Department); to require the grantee to
obtain a signed payback agreement from
each participant and submit it to the
Department; to require that grantees
assist participants in finding qualifying
employment after completing the
program; and to clarify that the hiring
preference provisions of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education
Assistance Act apply to this program.
• Amending § 263.12 to add to the
criteria we use in making continuation
awards; and to clarify that we may
reduce continuation awards based on a
grantee’s failure to meet project goals.
• Amending § 263.20 to modify the
definition of ‘‘Indian organization’’; and
to add a definition of ‘‘native youth
community project.’’
• Amending § 263.21 to remove the
set number of competitive preference
priority points; to revise the priority for
applications submitted by Indian
entities in paragraph (b), and to propose
in paragraph (c) five new priorities,
including one for native youth
community projects.
• Adding § 263.22 to include
application requirements for the
Demonstration Grants program.
• Adding § 263.23 to clarify that the
hiring preference provisions of the
Indian Self-Determination and
Education Act apply to this program.
These final regulations contain
changes from the NPRM, which are fully
explained in the Analysis of Comments
and Changes section of this document.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPRM, 15 parties
submitted comments on the proposed
regulations. We discuss substantive
issues under the section number of the
item to which they pertain. Several
comments did not pertain to a specific
section of the proposed regulations. We
discuss these comments based on the
general topic area. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor
changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the regulations since
publication of the NPRM follows.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters
expressed strong support for the
changes in the NPRM generally. One
commenter requested that the Secretary
issue a tribal consultation policy.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for the changes to the Professional
Development program and the
Demonstration Grants program. The
tribal consultation policy is outside the
scope of this rulemaking. However, we
are in the process of developing an
updated tribal consultation policy.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
During this process, we are consulting
with tribes, in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175.
We expect to publish this revised policy
during FY 2015.
Changes: None.
Professional Development Program
General
Comments: Several commenters
expressed support for the Professional
Development program, and gave
examples of impressive results from
past grants, which have expanded the
number of American Indian teachers in
tribal communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that
we ensure active collaboration among
grantees, tribes, and local schools to
ensure that the training provided under
the grants meets the educational needs
of local communities.
Discussion: We expect that the
competitive priority for consortia that
include a tribal entity (§ 263.5(a)), the
new priority for applicants with a letter
of support from a school district or other
entity that will consider hiring
graduates of this project (§ 263.5(b)(3)),
and the new selection criteria for need
that relates to employment
opportunities and shortages in certain
fields (§ 263.6(a)), will all contribute to
the commenter’s expressed goal.
Changes: None.
Eligible Applicants (§ 263.2)
Comments: Several commenters
objected to the requirement that a tribal
applicant (tribe or Indian organization)
be required to apply in consortium with
an IHE. One commenter asked that we
allow a period of time after funding in
order for a grantee to obtain a partner
IHE. Another commenter asked that we
define ‘‘in consortium with an
institution of higher education,’’ in
terms of the level of commitment
required from the IHE, and suggested we
permit an Indian organization to apply
as a sole applicant without an IHE. This
commenter also asked whether an
Indian organization can apply with
more than one IHE, and if so, what is
required to demonstrate the
partnerships.
Discussion: The statute requires that
any eligible entity that is not an IHE
(other than a Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)funded school) must apply in
consortium with an IHE (section 7122 of
the ESEA), and we cannot change that
statutory requirement. That eligibility
requirement also precludes us from
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
permitting grantees to obtain a partner
IHE after grants are made; for entities
required to be in a consortium with an
IHE in order to be eligible for a grant,
the application must be from the
consortium.
With regard to the level of
commitment required from the IHE, we
do not believe it is necessary to
prescribe the details of an arrangement
with an IHE. To demonstrate an eligible
consortium, the applicant must submit
a consortium agreement that complies
with the requirements of 34 CFR
75.127–129, including the requirement
that the agreement detail the activities
to be performed by each member, and
bind each member to every statement
and assurance in the application. The
IHE is the entity that will provide the
actual education and training to Indian
individuals to enable those individuals
to teach in or administer schools serving
Indians. By receiving a federally-funded
education, these individuals do not
need to take on loans and other
financial obligations that can be onerous
and can often dissuade students from
pursuing a career in education. The
level of commitment required by the
IHE is large; the IHE educates and trains
the participants, granting them the
degree needed to teach or administer in
accordance with State requirements.
Often the IHE is the entity that recruits
the students, assists with job placement,
provides support services during the
first year of a participant’s teaching or
administrative job, and complies with
the grantee reporting requirements.
However, an eligible entity partner such
as an Indian organization or other
nonprofit could provide these required
support services under the Professional
Development grant. It is possible for an
eligible entity to apply in consortium
with more than one IHE.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that
eligibility for these grants be expanded
to include national non-profit
organizations.
Discussion: The eligibility
requirements are statutory (see section
7122 of the ESEA) and we cannot
expand eligibility beyond the statutory
authority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether two local educational agencies
(LEAs) and a particular land grant
college that does not target Native
students could serve as partners for the
Professional Development program
under the proposed changes. The
commenter also asked whether a
regional education association (REA) is
eligible to apply.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Discussion: Any number of eligible
entities, in consortium with an eligible
IHE, can join together to apply for a
Professional Development grant. The
IHE must be accredited to provide the
coursework and level of degree required
by the project, as specified in § 263.2(c).
The IHE does not have to target or serve
primarily Native students; however, in
order to receive the priority for an
application submitted by an Indian
entity, the IHE must be an Indian IHE
that meets the definition in § 263.3. A
consortium applicant must submit a
consortium agreement that complies
with the requirements of 34 CFR
75.127–129. With regard to the
eligibility of an REA, that entity would
need to meet the definition of one of the
eligible entities: IHE, State educational
agency (SEA), LEA, Indian tribe or
Indian organization, or BIE-funded
school, and would need to partner with
an eligible IHE.
Changes: None.
Definitions (§ 263.3)
Comments: Several commenters
supported the broader definition of
‘‘Indian organization’’ that provides
eligibility to organizations that have
education as one of their purposes,
rather than the sole purpose. One
commenter asked that we ensure that
the expansion of the definition would
not preclude existing grantees from
receiving funds.
Discussion: We agree that the broader
definition better serves the purposes of
this program. The change in definition
will not affect existing grantees, which
will continue to be eligible for
continuation awards. It also will not
affect past grantees that qualified under
the more narrow definition and will
continue to be eligible if they apply for
a new grant.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters asked
that the definition of ‘‘Indian institution
of higher education’’ be expanded to
include Native American Serving NonTribal Institutions (NASNTIs).
Discussion: ‘‘Indian IHE’’ is currently
defined in § 263.3 of these regulations,
and includes only tribal colleges and
universities. NASNTIs are defined in
Title III, Parts A and F, of the Higher
Education Act, to mean IHEs that are
not tribal colleges or universities, but
that meet certain eligibility
requirements, including a minimum
number of enrolled students who are
Native American. We decline to change
the definition of ‘‘Indian IHE’’ for ESEA
because, while the term ‘‘Indian IHE’’ is
not defined in the ESEA, we believe that
the plain meaning of the statutory term
is limited to tribal colleges and
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22405
universities, as reflected in our
regulations.
Changes: None.
Priorities (§ 263.5)
Comments: Several commenters asked
that the priority for Indian entities in
§ 263.5(a) be expanded to include
NASNTIs. These commenters stated that
NASNTIs are often located in close
proximity to tribal communities, and
gave examples, including an institution
that was founded in response to local
tribal needs for qualified teachers in
reservation schools, and another
institution that educates and trains large
numbers of native students to serve as
teachers on a reservation. One
commenter asked that the priority
include NASNTIs that partner with a
tribal college, for example, when
students feed from a two-year tribal
college into a four-year NASNTI.
Another commenter requested that the
priority include all IHEs that
predominantly serve Native students.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that many NASNTIs fulfill
an important role in educating Native
students to serve as teachers in tribal
communities. However, Congress
specifically identified in section 7143 of
the ESEA the group of entities to which
we must give priority (Indian tribes,
Indian organizations, and Indian IHEs).
This group does not include NANSTIs,
and we decline to expand the priority
for Indian entities to include NASNTIs.
Furthermore, because non-Indian IHEs,
including those designated as NASNTI,
received almost half of all awards under
this grant program over the past three
years, we decline to add an additional
priority for NASNTIs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
objected to the consolidation of the two
existing priorities (in current § 263.5(a)
and (b)) in proposed § 263.5(a));
previously, one priority was for
applications from any tribal entity, and
one priority was for a consortium that
includes an Indian IHE as fiscal agent.
Discussion: We agree with the
comments about the difficulties caused
by our proposal to combine the two
existing priorities into one. The statute
requires that we give priority to
applications from all three types of
tribal entities: Tribes, Indian
organizations, and Indian IHEs. As
proposed, the combined priority could
result in a tribal entity that is part of a
consortium, but is not the fiscal agent or
lead applicant, not receiving a
preference. However, when an Indian
IHE or other Indian entity is the lead
applicant in a consortium, that entity
has more influence in directing and
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
22406
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
administering the grant. Therefore we
are revising the regulations to create two
separate priorities rather than the
proposed combined one.
The first priority, in § 263.5(a)(1),
gives preference to an Indian entity—
tribe, organization, or IHE—either
applying alone, or in a consortium for
which it serves as the lead applicant.
The second priority, in § 263.5(a)(2), is
for an Indian entity that is part of a
consortium but is not the lead applicant.
This will satisfy the statutory
requirement to give priority to the three
types of Indian entities, while enabling
us to provide a competitive preference
to applications for which the Indian
entity is the sole or lead applicant. An
applicant cannot receive competitive
preference points under both of these
priorities.
Changes: We have revised § 263.5(a)
to create two separate competitive
preference priorities. The first is for an
Indian entity—tribe, organization, or
IHE—either applying alone or as lead
applicant in a consortium. The second
is for an Indian entity that is part of a
consortium but is not the lead applicant.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned about the requirement that a
consortium applicant would be eligible
for the priority in proposed § 263.5(a)
only if an Indian IHE leads the
consortium as fiscal agent. The
commenter stated that the high
overhead costs of IHEs limit the funding
delivered directly to the program, and
that the requirement would limit
flexibility for an entity that trains
teachers and administrators by working
with a variety of IHEs to provide the
required coursework. This commenter
suggested that, alternatively, an Indian
organization should be able to serve as
lead applicant or fiscal agent in a
consortium, and be eligible for the
priority.
Discussion: Our goal was to ensure
that, in order to receive competitive
preference points, a consortium would
be led by an Indian entity. We agree
with the commenter, however, that the
proposed requirement that the lead of
the consortium must be an IHE was too
narrow. We agree that it is possible for
an Indian organization to operate a
Professional Development grant in
consortium with an IHE, and for the
Indian organization to be the actual lead
entity for the project. The same is true
for a tribe as lead applicant. The tribe
or Indian organization would receive
the grant and provide the funding to the
IHE to pay for the cost of the
participants’ education. We agree that
this could result in more direct funding
for student training. Therefore, we are
revising the priority in § 263.5(a)(1) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
permit a consortium to receive a
competitive preference if the lead
applicant is an Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian IHE. Before
awarding priority points, we will
examine the proposed project and
activities to ensure that the Indian entity
will in fact be serving as lead entity for
the project.
Changes: We have revised
§ 263.5(a)(1) to provide that a
consortium may receive a competitive
preference if the lead applicant is an
Indian tribe, Indian organization, or
Indian IHE.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our internal
review we reexamined the proposed
requirement that the Indian entity
leading a consortium must be the fiscal
agent in order to receive priority points.
While not common, we recognize that it
is possible to have a fiscal agent that is
not the lead applicant. Accordingly, in
§ 263.5(a)(1) we are revising the
proposed requirement that an Indian
entity be the ‘‘fiscal agent,’’ to instead
require that the Indian entity be the lead
applicant, which is the entity that
receives the grant.
Changes: We have revised § 263.5(a)
to change the preference for consortia in
which the fiscal agent is an Indian
entity, to consortia in which the lead
applicant is an Indian entity.
Comments: Several commenters were
generally concerned that the proposed
priority in § 263.5(a) would prevent
entities other than tribal entities from
obtaining grants.
Discussion: Due to the confusion
evident in some comments, we are
clarifying that the priorities in § 263.5(a)
for tribal entities are competitive
preference priorities. We will not use
those priorities as absolute priorities,
but we will use them as competitive
preference priorities in each year of a
new competition. If they were absolute
priorities, then a non-tribal IHE would
not be eligible to receive a grant, which
would be inconsistent with the statutory
list of eligible entities. This is different
from the priorities in § 263.5(b), which
we can designate as absolute or
competitive in any year, or can decline
to use.
Changes: We have revised § 263.5(a)
to clarify that the priorities for tribal
entities are competitive preference
priorities.
Comments: One commenter objected
to removing the point values from the
priorities for applications submitted by
Indian entities, arguing that it would
cause confusion for applicants and that
applicants may not have timely
information about eligibility
requirements. Another commenter was
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
opposed to removing the five-point
priority for tribal colleges. Another
commenter suggested that we rely upon
letters of support to show collaboration
but not assign preference points for
partnerships.
Discussion: We removed the specific
number of points from the priorities for
Indian entities, including the five points
for tribal colleges, so that we have the
flexibility to assign more (or fewer)
points in a particular grant competition.
This will allow us to provide additional
points as needed in any application year
to ensure that tribal entities, including
tribal colleges, are eligible to receive a
competitive preference. We do not
believe this will confuse applicants. For
each year in which we have a
competition for new awards, we will
announce the points for the tribal entity
preferences in the notice inviting
applications. Typically the notice is
published 60 days in advance of the
application deadline.
With regard to the comment objecting
to the awarding of competitive
preference points for partnerships,
eligible entities for this program include
consortia, and we are required by statute
to give priority to Indian entities; thus
consortia that include such Indian
entities will receive priority under
revised § 263.5(a). An Indian IHE,
however, that applies as the lead
applicant in a consortium would receive
no advantage, under § 263.5(a), over an
Indian IHE that is the sole applicant,
because both scenarios are included in
§ 263.5(a)(1) and would receive an equal
number of competitive preference
points. With respect to letters of
support, § 263.5(b)(3) adds a new
priority for applicants that include in
their applications a letter of support
from an entity, including a local school
district, that agrees to consider program
graduates for qualifying employment.
We believe that such letters of support
strengthen the likelihood that graduates
will find employment in schools serving
Indian students following their training.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked
whether we are removing the absolute
priority for pre-service training. Several
commenters requested that we permit
the use of funds to support and train
Indian individuals in obtaining masters
and doctoral degrees under the
priorities in proposed § 263.5(b) for preservice training for teachers and
administrators.
Discussion: We have not removed the
priority for pre-service training, and in
any grant competition in which the
Department uses this priority, we retain
the discretion to designate that priority
an absolute priority (see § 263.5(b)).
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
With regard to masters and doctoral
degrees, funds under the Professional
Development program can be used to
support a student in obtaining any
degree that is required by the State for
the teaching or administrative position
for which individuals are being trained.
However, the focus of this program is on
preparing teachers and administrators
for elementary and secondary
education. The current regulations
include graduate degrees as part of the
definitions of ‘‘full-time student’’ and
‘‘pre-service training’’ in § 263.3, and we
have not changed those definitions.
However, we are providing further
clarification in the priorities for preservice training for teachers and
administrators by removing the
references to bachelor’s degrees for
teachers and master’s degrees for
administrators so that a student
pursuing a higher-level degree may be
supported as a participant under this
program if that degree is required for a
specific position. However, because we
interpret the statute to support only the
preparation of teachers and
administrators in elementary and
secondary education, we are not
expanding the scope of the program to
include doctoral degrees for Indian
students seeking employment in higher
education.
Changes: We have revised the
priorities for pre-service training in
proposed §§ 263.5(b)(1) and (2) to
remove the references to a ‘‘bachelor’s
degree’’ for pre-service teacher training,
and, for administrator training, changing
the reference from ‘‘master’s degree’’ to
‘‘graduate degree.’’
Comments: None.
Discussion: During our internal
review we analyzed the existing
requirements in the priorities for preservice teacher training and
administrator training (in current
§ 263.5(c), proposed § 263.5(b)) and
believe it would be helpful to clarify
certain provisions. We are revising the
regulation to make clear that the
requirement that training be provided
before the end of the award period
applies to all three situations: An
education degree, a subject-matter
degree, and specialized training. We are
removing the exception for a fifth year
from the education degree provision
because a review of funded projects
shows that this exception is not
necessary. We are also removing, in the
provision on degrees in a subject area
(new § 263.5(b)(1)(i)(B)), the reference to
the requirement that training meet the
requirements for full State certification
or licensure, because it is redundant
with the introductory language of that
paragraph.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Changes: We have revised the priority
for pre-service training for teachers in
proposed § 263.5(b)(1) by moving the
reference to earning a degree before the
end of the award period from proposed
§ 263.5(b)(1)(i)(a) to the introductory
language of final § 263.5(b)(1)(i), by
removing the proposed exception for a
fifth year from § 263.5(b)(1)(i)(A), and by
removing the reference to the
requirement that training meets the
requirements for full State certification
or licensure from proposed
§ 263.5(b)(1)(i)(B).
Selection Criteria (§ 263.6)
Comments: One commenter objected
to the job market analysis element of the
selection criterion for ‘‘Need for Project’’
in proposed § 263.6, and stated that this
would increase the burden for
applicants to search for and interpret
market analysis data. The commenter
also requested that appropriate market
analysis Web site links be made
available to applicants.
Discussion: Under the selection
criterion ‘‘Need for Project’’ in § 263.6,
we will evaluate the extent to which the
proposed project will prepare personnel
in specific fields, and the extent to
which employment opportunities exist
in the project’s service area, with both
elements to be demonstrated by a job
market analysis. The purpose of a job
market analysis is to determine whether
there is a need for qualified education
personnel to fill vacancies in teacher
and administrator positions within the
geographic region to be served. To
conduct the job market analysis,
applicants can use accessible data
sources at the national, State and local
level to determine current and future
teacher and administrator shortages in
selected fields. Because job market data
are now generally available online, a
market analysis would not increase an
applicant’s burden. We also note that
prior applicants under the current
regulations also addressed need for
personnel, documenting education
personnel shortages in the region to be
served and designing their proposed
programs accordingly.
Accessible resources for determining
teacher shortages are available at the
national level; however, applicants
should rely on State and local sources
for more accurate and timely data. We
also note that this is an element of a
selection criterion, not an application
requirement, so it is optional for
applicants to address, although we
encourage all applicants to do so.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22407
Payback Requirements (§ 263.8)
Comments: Commenters supported
the proposed regulations clarifying the
payback requirements and procedures.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for these changes.
Changes: None.
Demonstration Grants Program
General
Comments: Several commenters were
generally supportive of the proposed
changes to the Demonstration Grants
program regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for the changes.
Changes: None.
Definitions (§ 263.20)
Comments: Several commenters
addressed the proposed definition of
‘‘Indian organization’’ as it applies to
both this program and the Professional
Development program; it is the same
definition for both programs.
Discussion: We address those
comments under the discussion of
Definitions for the Professional
Development program (§ 263.3).
Changes: None.
Definition of Native Youth Community
Project
Comments: Several commenters
supported the proposed definition of
‘‘Native Youth Community Project,’’ and
specifically the requirement that a
community come together to address the
adverse experiences affecting Indian
children. However, several other
commenters expressed concern that the
requirement for a partnership among the
specified entities could adversely affect
the success of some applications. For
example, one commenter was concerned
that some applicants do not have readily
available partner organizations, which
would reduce the likelihood that such
applicants would receive funding.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for encouraging partnerships among
entities to more effectively address the
complex barriers facing native youth.
We believe that greater collaboration
among the organizations increases the
likelihood that an NYCP will improve
the college and career readiness of
Indian youth. Furthermore, we believe
that proposed projects that demonstrate
the existence of a partnership at the
time of application are more likely to
become strong, viable projects.
Therefore, we disagree with the
commenters who objected to the
partnership requirement.
While we cannot ensure that
partnerships and agreements formed in
order to apply for a grant will stand the
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
22408
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
test of time, we believe that an applicant
with a formal partnership agreement
will have a greater chance of success
than an applicant with only letters of
support. We expect that in ranking
applications, reviewers will judge the
quality of the partnerships presented in
those application, based on the selection
criteria. Moreover, a partnership that
fails after being awarded a grant would
not be able to show substantial progress
in order to receive continuation
funding.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that
we not give priority to applicants
simply because of their geographic
proximity to locally available and
willing partners.
Discussion: We agree that if a
community comes together to create an
NYCP, that partnership should have the
flexibility to include non-local partners.
A tribe and school district may wish to
engage with a national nonprofit
organization that is skilled in addressing
the focus of the local project, whether it
is academic success, drug prevention,
parental engagement in schools, or any
other project focus. Therefore we are
broadening part of the definition of
NYCP; rather than requiring the
applicant or a partner to show that it has
the capacity to improve outcomes for
Indian students, we are requiring the
applicant or a partner to demonstrate
that it has the capacity to improve
outcomes that are relevant to the project
focus. This allows an applicant to
partner with a national organization that
has demonstrated the capacity to
improve outcomes that are relevant to
the project focus, and not be limited to
locally available and willing partners.
There is a statutory application
requirement that projects must be based
either on scientific research or on an
existing program that has been modified
to be culturally appropriate for Indian
students (see § 263.22(a)(3). Thus, an
applicant that partners with an entity
that has demonstrated success with nonIndian students, and proposes to use
that entity’s program model, will need
to explain how it has modified that
program to be culturally appropriate.
Changes: We have revised paragraph
(6) of the definition of NYCP in § 263.20
to provide that an applicant or a partner
must have demonstrated the capacity to
improve outcomes that are relevant to
the project focus.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we ensure that States and local
public schools actively participate and
coordinate with tribal grantees.
Discussion: We are requiring that at
least one tribe and at least one local
school district be partners in a proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
project. We are not requiring State
involvement, although States may be
partners in a project. Because of the
focus on local community-driven
solutions, it would not be appropriate to
require a State’s involvement.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters asked
that we include tribal colleges in NYCP
partnerships, and one asked that we
include both tribal colleges and
NASNTIs.
Discussion: Tribal colleges are eligible
entities under the Demonstration Grants
program, and nothing in the regulations
precludes either a tribal college or a
NASNTI from being a partner in an
NYCP. Although we agree that a college
or university could be a valuable partner
in an NYCP, we decline to make tribal
colleges or any other IHEs mandatory
partners in NYCPs, because the focus of
these projects is a local community area,
and not all tribal communities have a
college in the vicinity.
Changes: None.
Comments: We received several
comments asking whether one NYCP
can include multiple tribes. We also
received additional comments
expressing the concern that urban
communities often include Indian youth
from many different tribes, and that
urban applicants might face unfair
challenges in partnering with tribes or
their tribal education agencies because
of the distance between the tribes and
the urban communities in which the
Indian youth live and attend school.
Another commenter expressed concern
that a partnering tribe would refuse to
serve youth from other tribes. Some
commenters specifically requested that
we eliminate the requirement that
applicants form a partnership with a
tribe. Another commenter asked
whether one tribe can participate in
more than one NYCP.
Discussion: Nothing in the definition
of NYCP prohibits a project from
including multiple tribes as partners. To
meet the NYCP definition, applicants
must identify and address significant
barriers and needs within a local
community. It is likely that in many
areas, including urban areas, Indian
youth and their families from many
tribes live within a defined local
community. Also, members of one tribe
often live in several different
communities. The entities responsible
for Indian youth in the identified local
community should partner with one
another. We agree that certain NYCP
applicants may need to partner with
multiple tribes or their tribal education
agencies in order to address the
identified need in the local community.
We are therefore clarifying in the final
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulations that partnerships can
include more than one tribe.
However, we disagree with the
commenters that it is unfair to urban
areas to require applicants to partner
with one or more tribes. The NYCPs are
intended to support the involvement of
tribes in the education of Indian
children, which is one of the goals of
title VII of the ESEA. Each project must
therefore include a partnership among a
school district or BIE-funded school, a
tribe or its education agency, and other
organizations as necessary, to address
the need identified by the project. The
partnering entities must agree to serve
the Indian youth living in the defined
local community, regardless of their
tribal membership.
With regard to whether one tribe can
participate in more than one NYCP,
nothing in the regulations prohibits
such participation.
Changes: We have revised paragraph
(5)(i) of the definition of NYCP in
§ 263.20 to include one or more tribes or
their tribal education agencies.
Comment: One commenter objected to
the requirement that NYCPs include a
school district as a partner, arguing that
this would lead to more bureaucracy
and undue attention to the school
district’s own programs as opposed to
those favored by a qualifying Indian
organization.
Discussion: We believe that schools,
tribes, and Indian organizations
similarly value better outcomes for
Indian youth, including academic
achievement and readiness for
postsecondary education and
employment. The NYCPs are intended
to leverage the resources and capacity
currently spread among tribes, LEAs,
BIE-funded schools, or other
organizations, through a partnership to
increase the likelihood of reaching these
better outcomes. We believe that,
especially for communities where most
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN)
students attend the local public schools,
the inclusion of the LEA in these
projects is essential to the success of the
projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department should revise the
definition of NYCP to allow for a project
to include a partnership with
organizations such as the Boys and Girls
Club of America.
Discussion: Paragraph (5) of the NCYP
definition permits community
organizations to be included in a
partnership. However, we do not
recommend any specific community
organizations as partners in an NYCP.
The applicants must determine which
entities are necessary partners in order
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
to address the identified need of the
Indian youth in the local community to
be served by the NYCP.
Changes: None.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Definition of ‘‘Rural’’
Comment: One commenter requested
that we add a definition of ‘‘rural’’ in
the final regulations.
Discussion: There is no need to define
‘‘rural’’ because the priority for rural
applicants under § 263.21(c)(5) explains
which entities are considered rural. We
include further discussion of the rural
priority under the Priorities section of
the Analysis of Comments and Changes
in this notice.
Changes: None.
Priorities (§ 263.21)
Comments: Several commenters
supported our proposal to expand the
Demonstration Grants program beyond
the two absolute priorities of early
childhood and college readiness. One
commenter further commended the
Department for supporting complex
projects to address the complex issues
facing some Indian communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for the priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
generally objected to the proposed
revisions to the priorities in § 263.21(b),
and to the parallel provision in the
Professional Development regulations.
One objected to removing the priority
preference for consortia that include an
Indian entity; another commenter
objected to removing the required
number of priority preference points.
Discussion: The statute for both the
Professional Development and
Demonstration Grants requires that we
give priority to applications from all
three types of tribal entities: Tribes,
Indian organizations, and Indian IHEs.
We proposed to remove the priority for
consortia that include a tribal entity
because a tribal entity that is not a sole
applicant or lead applicant in a
consortium does not necessarily have
the influence that a sole applicant, or
lead applicant in a consortium, has.
However, if we only give priority when
the Indian entity is the lead applicant,
it would result in a tribal entity
receiving no preference when it is part
of a consortium but not the lead
applicant. Therefore we are creating two
separate priorities for the Demonstration
Grants, similar to those created for the
Professional Development Grants. The
first priority, in § 263.21(b)(1), gives
preference to an Indian entity—tribe,
organization, or IHE—either applying
alone, or in a consortium or partnership
if it serves as the lead applicant. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
second priority, in § 263.21(b)(2), is for
an Indian entity that is part of a
consortium or partnership but is not the
lead applicant. This will enable us to
satisfy the statutory requirement to give
priority to the three types of Indian
entities, while retaining the ability to
provide more points to applications for
which the Indian entity is the sole or
lead applicant. Applicants cannot
receive points under both of these
priorities.
With regard to the concern about
removing point values from the
regulations, we have removed the fivepoint limitation for both priorities so
that we have the flexibility to assign
more (or fewer) points as needed to
ensure that applicants from tribal
entities have an advantage over other
applicants.
Changes: We have revised § 263.21(b)
to create two separate competitive
preference priorities. The first priority is
for an Indian entity—tribe, organization,
or IHE—either applying alone or as lead
applicant in a consortium or
partnership. The second is for an Indian
entity that is part of a consortium or
partnership but is not the lead
applicant.
Comments: One commenter objected
to the revisions in § 263.21(c) that
would give the Department discretion to
choose specific priorities for a
competition in any given year. The
commenter stated that changing the
priorities would make it hard for longterm grantees to create stable programs
across multiple years.
Discussion: Under § 263.21(c), the
Department has the discretion to choose
any of the listed priorities in any year
the Department conducts a grant
competition for this program. This is
consistent with the previous provisions
in the same paragraph, which provided
that the Department could choose
among three different priorities in any
given year, although all of those were
absolute priorities. We recognize that
potential applicants will need to
respond to the priorities as published
under each notice inviting applications.
However, grantees will have the full
grant period, typically 48 months, to
implement their projects. We also note
that there is no guarantee that a grantee
under a discretionary grant program will
receive another grant under the same
program at the end of its grant period.
The revisions to the priorities in
§ 263.21(c) enable the Secretary to
prioritize projects that address the needs
of the target communities.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22409
Priority for Native Youth Community
Project (NYCP) (§ 263.21(c)(1))
Comments: Several commenters
supported the proposed priority for
NYCP; one commenter mentioned the
benefits of collaboration between tribes
and schools and noted how out-ofschool environments significantly affect
in-classroom success. Other commenters
requested that we support parent and
family engagement in funding NYCPs.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for the NYCP priority. We agree that
parent and family engagement both in
school and in the community is a
crucial component in efforts to improve
the outcomes of all children, including
Indian children and youth. Each
applicant must include in its
application a description of how parents
of Indian children have been and will be
involved in developing and
implementing the proposed activities, as
required by § 263.22(a)(1). In addition,
an existing AI/AN parent organization
or tribal parent committee could serve
as a valuable partner in an NYCP.
Changes: None.
Priority for Grantees Under Other
Programs (§ 263.21(c)(2))
Comments: Several commenters
objected to the priority for applicants
that have been awarded grants under
other programs. One commenter stated
that Indian organizations would be
unfairly excluded under this priority,
which would interfere with their ability
to receive funding. Another commenter
stated that the priority would provide
undue advantage to applicants that are
already receiving Federal funds.
Discussion: This priority is designed
to increase the likelihood that funded
projects will attain their goals. The
Demonstration Grants program is
intended to target the most persistent
issues facing Indian children, and to
provide models that others can use.
Grantees with existing resources to
leverage are likely to have greater
opportunities to address the needs of
Indian children and to provide models
that can be disseminated broadly.
Although we did not receive a
comment requesting clarification, the
proposed regulations did not state the
timeframe within which applicants
must have received these other awards
in order to qualify for this preference.
We are clarifying that, to receive
preference under this priority, the lead
applicant or its partner must have
received an award within the last four
years. A longer period of time would
make it less likely that the grantee could
build on the experience gained by that
grant.
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
22410
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Changes: We have revised
§ 263.21(c)(2) to provide that the
applicant or one of its partners must
have received an award under a selected
program within the last four years in
order to receive this preference.
Comment: One commenter objected to
the priority for applicants that
consolidate funds through a plan that
complies with section 7116 of the ESEA
or other authority. The commenter
argued that this preference would
unduly favor tribes, which manage
multiple programs, as opposed to Indian
organizations that have a more narrow
focus.
Discussion: The purpose of the
priority in § 263.21(c)(3) for entities that
have Department approval to
consolidate funds is to encourage
entities to take advantage of measures
available to them to reduce duplication
and bureaucracy, such as the authority
under section 7116 of the ESEA for
consolidation of funding designed to
benefit Indian students. Even though we
recognize that not every eligible entity
will be able to take advantage of this
priority, we seek to encourage this
consolidation in order to increase the
impact of Federal funding by reducing
duplication of effort.
Changes: None.
Rural Priority (§ 263.21(c)(5))
Comments: We received several
comments regarding the competitive
preference priority for rural applicants.
Some commenters commended our
efforts to address the needs associated
with rural poverty. However, other
commenters stated that urban areas, like
rural communities, face the challenges
of poverty. Several commenters stated
that projects serving urban communities
and those serving rural communities
should not be required to compete for
funding. One commenter stated that
more American Indian children live in
urban than in rural areas. Several
commenters argued that because the
Department’s Impact Aid program
compensates school districts in rural
areas, such districts should not receive
a priority under this program. A
commenter also argued that the
Department should allocate more funds
to Impact Aid programs in order to
address rural poverty, rather than
providing a priority under this program.
Discussion: Based on the Common
Core of Data reported by SEAs in school
year 2012–2013, nearly one-third of AI/
AN children are enrolled in rural school
districts, whereas fewer than one-fourth
of AI/AN children live in city school
districts. Therefore, we believe that
giving preference to rural districts will
appropriately focus on the geographical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
areas with proportionately larger
populations of Indian children.
Furthermore, we believe that the
solutions to educational challenges may
be different in rural communities than
in urban communities and that there is
a need for solutions that are unique to
rural communities. The scarcity of
services and resources available in rural
communities may require additional
attention to address these needs.
With regard to the argument
concerning the Impact Aid program, we
note that not all rural school districts
receive Impact Aid funding, often
because they do not meet the eligibility
requirements. For example, compared to
the more than 1,200 school districts that
receive title VII formula grants for
Indian students, fewer than 700 school
districts receive Impact Aid funding for
students residing on Indian lands.
Moreover, Impact Aid funds are
intended to replace lost tax revenues or
increased expenses due to a Federal
presence. The Impact Aid funds are
considered general aid to the recipient
school districts, and they may use the
funds in whatever manner they choose
in accordance with their local and State
requirements. Thus a school district that
receives Impact Aid may be as much in
need of supplemental funding for Indian
students through the Demonstration
Grants program as any other school
district.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our internal
review of the proposed priority for rural
applicants in § 263.21(c)(5), we
reviewed again whether all BIE-funded
schools serve rural locales and
determined that not all BIE-funded
schools serve those locales.
Accordingly, we are revising the
regulations to add a reference to the
census locale codes as the indicator for
BIE-funded schools that would be
considered rural for purposes of this
priority.
Changes: We have revised the
language in § 263.21(c)(5) with regard to
BIE-funded schools to add that, to meet
the rural priority, they must be in locale
codes 42 or 43, as designated by the U.S.
Census Bureau.
Application Requirements (§ 263.22)
Comment: One commenter objected to
the requirement in § 263.22(b)(2) that
applicants submit a written agreement
between the partners in a proposed
project.
Discussion: This is an application
requirement that the Department may
choose to use in any year of a new
competition. For a priority such as the
NYCP priority, we would select this
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
application requirement because it
would be essential for such a project to
show agreement between the required
partners. For other priorities, such as a
priority for early learning projects, this
requirement may not be appropriate. We
will publish the selected application
requirements in the notice inviting
applications in the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our internal
review of the proposed application
requirements, we noted that the
requirement to submit measureable
objectives in § 263.22(b)(3)
insufficiently communicated the
expectation for the project to use the
measureable objectives in evaluating the
progress toward and success in meeting
its goal or goals. Accordingly, we are
revising the regulations to include a
project evaluation plan.
Changes: We have revised the
language in § 263.22(b)(3) to clarify that
the applicant must submit, in response
to a notice inviting applications
published in the Federal Register, an
evaluation plan that includes
measureable objectives.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (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 final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
on 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 final regulations
only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits 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 final
regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The
potential costs associated with the
priorities and requirements would be
minimal while the potential benefits are
significant.
For Professional Development grants,
applicants may anticipate costs in
developing their applications and time
spent reporting participant payback
information in the Data Collection
System (DCS). Additional costs would
be associated with participant and
employer information entered in the
DCS, but program funds would pay for
the costs of carrying out these activities.
The benefits include enhancing
project design and quality of services to
better meet the program objectives, with
the end result that more participants
successfully complete their programs of
study and obtain employment as
teachers and administrators.
For the Demonstration Grants
program, applicants may anticipate
costs associated with developing a
partnership agreement and providing
evidence of a local needs assessment or
data analysis. These requirements
should improve the quality of projects
funded and conducted under these
grants, and we believe the benefits of
these improvements will outweigh the
costs. Elsewhere in this section, under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens
specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 263.6, 263.10, 263.11 and
263.22 Indian Education Discretionary
Grant Programs; Professional
Development Program and
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children Program contain information
collection requirements. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of
Education has submitted a copy of these
sections and related application forms
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for its review and approval. In
accordance with the PRA, the OMB
Control number associated with the
Professional Development final
regulations, related application forms,
and ICRs for section 263.6, is OMB
approved 1810–0580, and for sections
263.10 and 263.11 it is OMB approved
1810–0698. The Department also
submitted to OMB for its review and
approval a new Information Collection
Request (ICR) for control number 1810—
New Application for Demonstration
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22411
Grants for Indian Children Program for
section 263.22. An approved OMB
control number will be assigned to this
new ICR at the time of publication of the
final rule.
A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless OMB approves the collection
under the PRA and the corresponding
information collection instrument
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person is required
to comply with, or is subject to penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection
of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently
valid OMB control number.
Intergovernmental Review
These programs are subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 12372
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments
on whether the proposed regulations
would require transmission of
information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.
Based on our review, we have
determined that these final regulations
do not require transmission of
information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
22412
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers: 84.299A Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children Program; 84.299B
Professional Development Program)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 263
Business and industry, Colleges and
universities, Elementary and secondary
education, Grant programs—education,
Grant program—Indians, Indians—
education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Scholarships and
fellowships.
Dated: April 17, 2015.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary of Education
amends title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising part 263 to read
as follows:
PART 263—INDIAN EDUCATION
DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Subpart A—Professional Development
Program
Sec.
263.1 What is the Professional
Development Program?
263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the
Professional Development program?
263.3 What definitions apply to the
Professional Development program?
263.4 What costs may a Professional
Development program include?
263.5 What priority is given to certain
projects and applicants?
263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate
applications for the Professional
Development program?
263.7 What are the requirements for a leave
of absence?
263.8 What are the payback requirements?
263.9 What are the requirements for
payback deferral?
263.10 What are the participant payback
reporting requirements?
263.11 What are the grantee post-award
requirements?
263.12 What are the program-specific
requirements for continuation awards?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children Program
Sec.
263.20 What definitions apply to the
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
263.21 What priority is given to certain
projects and applicants?
263.22 What are the application
requirements for these grants?
263.23 What is the Federal requirement for
Indian hiring preference that applies to
these grants?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, unless
otherwise noted.
(2) A pre-service training program
when the Bureau-funded school applies
in consortium with an institution of
higher education that is accredited to
provide the coursework and level of
degree required by the project.
(c) Eligibility of an applicant requiring
a consortium with any institution of
higher education, including Indian
institutions of higher education,
requires that the institution of higher
education be accredited to provide the
coursework and level of degree required
by the project.
§ 263.1 What is the Professional
Development program?
§ 263.3 What definitions apply to the
Professional Development program?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A—Professional Development
Program
(a) The Professional Development
program provides grants to eligible
entities to—
(1) Increase the number of qualified
Indian individuals in professions that
serve Indian people;
(2) Provide training to qualified
Indian individuals to become teachers,
administrators, teacher aides, social
workers, and ancillary educational
personnel; and
(3) Improve the skills of qualified
Indian individuals who serve in the
education field.
(b) The Professional Development
program requires individuals who
receive training to—
(1) Perform work related to the
training received under the program and
that benefits Indian people, or to repay
all or a prorated part of the assistance
received under the program; and
(2) Periodically report to the Secretary
on the individual’s compliance with the
work requirement until work-related
payback is complete or the individual
has been referred for cash payback.
§ 263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the
Professional Development program?
(a) In order to be eligible for either
pre-service or in-service training
programs, an applicant must be an
eligible entity which means—
(1) An institution of higher education,
including an Indian institution of higher
education;
(2) A State educational agency in
consortium with an institution of higher
education;
(3) A local educational agency (LEA)
in consortium with an institution of
higher education;
(4) An Indian tribe or Indian
organization in consortium with an
institution of higher education; or
(5) A Bureau of Indian Education
(Bureau)-funded school.
(b) Bureau-funded schools are eligible
applicants for—
(1) An in-service training program;
and
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The following definitions apply to the
Professional Development program:
Bureau-funded school means a
Bureau of Indian Education school, a
contract or grant school, or a school for
which assistance is provided under the
Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
Department means the U.S.
Department of Education.
Dependent allowance means costs for
the care of minor children under the age
of 18 who reside with the training
participant and for whom the
participant has responsibility. The term
does not include financial obligations
for payment of child support required of
the participant.
Full course load means the number of
credit hours that the institution requires
of a full-time student.
Full-time student means a student
who—
(1) Is a degree candidate for a
baccalaureate or graduate degree;
(2) Carries a full course load; and
(3) Is not employed for more than 20
hours a week.
Good standing means a cumulative
grade point average of at least 2.0 on a
4.0 grade point scale in which failing
grades are computed as part of the
average, or another appropriate standard
established by the institution.
Graduate degree means a postbaccalaureate degree awarded by an
institution of higher education.
Indian means an individual who is—
(1) A member of an Indian tribe or
band, as membership is defined by the
Indian tribe or band, including any tribe
or band terminated since 1940, and any
tribe or band recognized by the State in
which the tribe or band resides;
(2) A descendant of a parent or
grandparent who meets the
requirements of paragraph (1) of this
definition;
(3) Considered by the Secretary of the
Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;
(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska
Native; or
(5) A member of an organized Indian
group that received a grant under the
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was
in effect on October 19, 1994.
Indian institution of higher education
means an accredited college or
university within the United States
cited in section 532 of the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of
1994, any other institution that qualifies
for funding under the Tribally
Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo
Community College, authorized in the
Navajo Community College Assistance
Act of 1978.
Indian organization means an
organization that—
(1) Is legally established—
(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or
in accordance with State or tribal law;
and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the
promotion of the education of Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board,
the majority of which is Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation,
operates with the sanction or by charter
of the governing body of that
reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or
subdivision of, nor under the direct
control of, any institution of higher
education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local
government.
Induction services means services
provided after participants complete
their training program and during their
first year of teaching. Induction services
support and improve participants’
professional performance and promote
their retention in the field of education
and teaching. They include, at a
minimum, these activities:
(1) High-quality mentoring, coaching,
and consultation services for the
participant to improve performance;
(2) Access to research materials and
information on teaching and learning;
(3) Assisting new teachers with use of
technology in the classroom and use of
data, particularly student achievement
data, for classroom instruction;
(4) Clear, timely and useful feedback
on performance, provided in
coordination with the participant’s
supervisor; and
(5) Periodic meetings or seminars for
participants to enhance collaboration,
feedback, and peer networking and
support.
In-service training means activities
and opportunities designed to enhance
the skills and abilities of individuals in
their current areas of employment.
Institution of higher education means
an accredited college or university
within the United States that awards a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate
degree.
Participant means an Indian
individual who is being trained under
the Professional Development program.
Payback means work-related service
or cash reimbursement to the
Department of Education for the training
received under the Professional
Development program.
Pre-service training means training to
Indian individuals to prepare them to
meet the requirements for licensing or
certification in a professional field
requiring at least a baccalaureate degree.
Professional development activities
means pre-service or in-service training
offered to enhance the skills and
abilities of individual participants.
Secretary means the Secretary of the
Department of Education or an official
or employee of the Department acting
for the Secretary under a delegation of
authority.
Stipend means that portion of an
award that is used for room, board, and
personal living expenses for full-time
participants who are living at or near
the institution providing the training.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442 and 7491)
§ 263.4 What costs may a Professional
Development program include?
(a) A Professional Development
program may include, as training costs,
assistance to—
(1) Fully finance a student’s
educational expenses including tuition,
books, and required fees; health
insurance required by the institution of
higher education; stipend; dependent
allowance; technology costs; program
required travel; and instructional
supplies; or
(2) Supplement other financial aid,
including Federal funding other than
loans, for meeting a student’s
educational expenses.
(b) The Secretary announces the
expected maximum amounts for
stipends and dependent allowance in
the annual notice inviting applications
published in the Federal Register.
(c) Other costs that a Professional
Development program may include, but
that must not be included as training
costs, include costs for—
(1) Collaborating with prospective
employers within the grantees’ local
service area to create a pool of
potentially available qualifying
employment opportunities;
(2) In-service training activities such
as providing mentorships linking
experienced teachers at job placement
sites with program participants; and
(3) Assisting participants in
identifying and securing qualifying
employment opportunities in their field
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22413
of study following completion of the
program.
§ 263.5 What priority is given to certain
projects and applicants?
(a) The Secretary gives competitive
preference priority to—
(1) An application submitted by an
Indian tribe, Indian organization, or an
Indian institution of higher education
that is eligible to participate in the
Professional Development program. A
consortium application of eligible
entities that meets the requirements of
34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and
includes an Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian institution of
higher education will be considered
eligible to receive preference under this
priority only if the lead applicant for the
consortium is the Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian institution of
higher education. In order to be
considered a consortium application,
the application must include the
consortium agreement, signed by all
parties; or
(2) A consortium application of
eligible entities that—
(i) Meets the requirements of 34 CFR
75.127 through 75.129 and includes an
Indian tribe, Indian organization, or
Indian institution of higher education;
and
(ii) Is not eligible to receive a
preference under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(b) The Secretary may annually
establish as a priority any of the
priorities listed in this paragraph. When
inviting applications for a competition
under the Professional Development
program, the Secretary designates the
type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational
through a notice in the Federal Register.
The effect of each type of priority is
described in 34 CFR 75.105.
(1) Pre-Service training for teachers.
The Secretary establishes a priority for
projects that—
(i) Provide support and training to
Indian individuals to complete a preservice education program before the
end of the award period that enables the
individuals to meet the requirements for
full State certification or licensure as a
teacher through—
(A) Training that leads to a degree in
education;
(B) For States allowing a degree in a
specific subject area, training that leads
to a degree in the subject area; or
(C) Training in a current or new
specialized teaching assignment that
requires a degree and in which a
documented teacher shortage exists;
(ii) Provide one year of induction
services, during the award period, to
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
22414
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
participants after graduation,
certification, or licensure, while they are
completing their first year of work in
schools with significant Indian student
populations; and
(iii) Include goals for the—
(A) Number of participants to be
recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to
continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate
each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find
qualifying jobs within twelve months of
completion.
(2) Pre-service administrator training.
The Secretary establishes a priority for
projects that—
(i) Provide support and training to
Indian individuals to complete a
graduate degree in education
administration that is provided before
the end of the award period and that
allows participants to meet the
requirements for State certification or
licensure as an education administrator;
(ii) Provide one year of induction
services, during the award period, to
participants after graduation,
certification, or licensure, while they are
completing their first year of work as
administrators in schools with
significant Indian student populations;
and
(iii) Include goals for the—
(A) Number of participants to be
recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to
continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate
each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find
qualifying jobs within twelve months of
completion.
(3) Letter of support. The Secretary
establishes a priority for applicants that
include a letter of support signed by the
authorized representative of an LEA or
Department of the Interior Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE)-funded school or
other entity in the applicant’s service
area that agrees to consider program
graduates for qualifying employment.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442 and 7473)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate
applications for the Professional
Development program?
The Secretary uses the procedures for
establishing selection criteria and
factors in 34 CFR 75.200 through 75.210
to establish the criteria and factors used
to evaluate applications submitted in a
grant competition for the Professional
Development program. The Secretary
may also consider one or more of the
criteria and factors listed in paragraphs
(a) through (e) of this section to evaluate
applications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
(a) Need for project. In determining
the need for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers one or more of the
following:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project will prepare personnel in
specific fields in which shortages have
been demonstrated through a job market
analysis.
(2) The extent to which employment
opportunities exist in the project’s
service area, as demonstrated through a
job market analysis.
(b) Significance. In determining the
significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers one or more of the
following:
(1) The potential of the proposed
project to develop effective strategies for
teaching Indian students and improving
Indian student achievement, as
demonstrated by a plan to share
findings gained from the proposed
project with parties who could benefit
from such findings, such as other
institutions of higher education who are
training teachers and administrators
who will be serving Indian students.
(2) The likelihood that the proposed
project will build local capacity to
provide, improve, or expand services
that address the specific needs of Indian
students.
(c) Quality of the project design. The
Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors in determining the
quality of the design of the proposed
project:
(1) The extent to which the goals,
objectives, and outcomes to be achieved
by the proposed project are ambitious
but also attainable and address—
(i) The number of participants
expected to be recruited in the project
each year;
(ii) The number of participants
expected to continue in the project each
year;
(iii) The number of participants
expected to graduate; and
(iv) The number of participants
expected to find qualifying jobs within
twelve months of completion.
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a plan for recruiting and
selecting participants that ensures that
program participants are likely to
complete the program.
(3) The extent to which the proposed
project will incorporate the needs of
potential employers, as identified by a
job market analysis, by establishing
partnerships and relationships with
appropriate entities (e.g., Bureau-funded
schools, organizations providing
educational services to Indian students,
and LEAs) and developing programs
that meet their employment needs.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(d) Quality of project services. The
Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors in determining the
quality of project services:
(1) The likelihood that the proposed
project will provide participants with
learning experiences that develop
needed skills for successful teaching
and/or administration in schools with
significant Indian populations.
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project prepares participants to adapt
teaching and/or administrative practices
to meet the breadth of Indian student
needs.
(3) The extent to which the applicant
will provide job placement activities
that reflect the findings of a job market
analysis and needs of potential
employers.
(4) The extent to which the applicant
will offer induction services that reflect
the latest research on effective delivery
of such services.
(e) Quality of project personnel. The
Secretary considers one or more of the
following factors when determining the
quality of the personnel who will carry
out the proposed project:
(1) The qualifications, including
relevant training, experience, and
cultural competence, of the project
director and the amount of time this
individual will spend directly involved
in the project.
(2) The qualifications, including
relevant training, experience, and
cultural competence, of key project
personnel and the amount of time to be
spent on the project and direct
interactions with participants.
(3) The qualifications, including
relevant training, experience, and
cultural competence (as necessary), of
project consultants or subcontractors, if
any.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 1810–
0580)
§ 263.7 What are the requirements for a
leave of absence?
(a) A participant must submit a
written request for a leave of absence to
the project director not less than 30 days
prior to withdrawal or completion of a
grading period, unless an emergency
situation has occurred and the project
director chooses to waive the prior
notification requirement.
(b) The project director may approve
a leave of absence, for a period not
longer than twelve months, provided
the participant has completed at least
twelve months of training in the project
and is in good standing at the time of
request.
(c) The project director permits a
leave of absence only if the institution
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
of higher education certifies that the
training participant is eligible to resume
his or her course of study at the end of
the leave of absence.
(d) A participant who is granted a
leave of absence and does not return to
his or her course of study by the end of
the grant project period will be
considered not to have completed the
course of study for the purpose of
project performance reporting.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 263.8 What are the payback
requirements?
(a) General. All participants must—
(1) Either perform work-related
payback or provide cash reimbursement
to the Department for the training
received. It is the preference of the
Department for participants to complete
a work-related payback;
(2) Sign an agreement, at the time of
selection for training, that sets forth the
payback requirements; and
(3) Report employment verification in
a manner specified by the Department
or its designee.
(b) Work-related payback. (1)
Participants qualify for work-related
payback if the work they are performing
is in their field of study under the
Professional Development program and
benefits Indian people. Employment in
a school that has a significant Indian
student population qualifies as work
that benefits Indian people.
(2) The period of time required for a
work-related payback is equivalent to
the total period of time for which preservice or in-service training was
actually received on a month-for-month
basis under the Professional
Development program.
(3) Work-related payback is credited
for the actual time the participant
works, not for how the participant is
paid (e.g., for work completed over 9
months but paid over 12 months, the
payback credit is 9 months).
(4) For participants that initiate, but
cannot complete, a work-related
payback, the payback converts to a cash
payback that is prorated based upon the
amount of work-related payback
completed.
(c) Cash payback. (1) Participants who
do not submit employment verification
within twelve months of program exit or
completion, or have not submitted
employment verification for a twelvemonth period during a work-related
payback, will automatically be referred
for a cash payback unless the
participant qualifies for a deferral as
described in § 263.9.
(2) The cash payback required shall be
equivalent to the total amount of funds
received and expended for training
received under this program and may be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
prorated based on any approved workrelated service the participant performs.
(3) Participants who are referred to
cash payback may incur non-refundable
penalty and administrative fees in
addition to their total training costs and
will incur interest charges starting the
day of referral.
(4) The cash payback obligation may
only be discharged through bankruptcy
if repaying the loan would cause the
participant undue hardship as defined
in 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8).
§ 263.9 What are the requirements for
payback deferral?
(a) Education deferral. If a participant
completes or exits the Professional
Development program, but plans to
continue his or her education as a fulltime student without interruption, in a
program leading to a degree at an
accredited institution of higher
education, the Secretary may defer the
payback requirement until the
participant has completed his or her
educational program.
(1) A request for a deferral must be
submitted to the Secretary within 30
days of completing or exiting the
Professional Development program and
must provide the following
information—
(i) The name of the accredited
institution the student will be attending;
(ii) A copy of the letter of admission
from the institution;
(iii) The degree being sought; and
(iv) The projected date of completion.
(2) If the Secretary approves the
deferral of the payback requirement on
the basis that a participant is continuing
as a full-time student, the participant
must submit to the Secretary a status
report from an academic advisor or
other authorized representative of the
institution of higher education, showing
verification of enrollment and status,
after every grading period.
(b) Military deferral. If a participant
exits the Professional Development
program because he or she is called or
ordered to active duty status in
connection with a war, military
operation, or national emergency for
more than 30 days as a member of a
reserve component of the Armed Forces
named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or as a
member of the National Guard on fulltime National Guard duty, as defined in
10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5), the Secretary may
defer the payback requirement until the
participant has completed his or her
military service, for a period not to
exceed 36 months. Requests for deferral
must be submitted to the Secretary
within 30 days of the earlier of receiving
the call to military service or completing
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22415
or exiting the Professional Development
program, and must provide—
(1) A written statement from the
participant’s commanding or personnel
officer certifying—
(i) That the participant is on active
duty in the Armed Forces of the United
States;
(ii) The date on which the
participant’s service began; and
(iii) The date on which the
participant’s service is expected to end;
or
(2)(i) A true certified copy of the
participant’s official military orders; and
(ii) A copy of the participant’s
military identification.
§ 263.10 What are the participant payback
reporting requirements?
(a) Notice of intent. Participants must
submit to the Secretary, within 30 days
of completion of, or exit from, as
applicable, their training program, a
notice of intent to complete a workrelated or cash payback, or to continue
in a degree program as a full-time
student.
(b) Work-related payback. (1) Starting
within six months after exit from or
completion of the program, participants
must submit to the Secretary
employment information, which
includes information explaining how
the employment is related to the
training received and benefits Indian
people.
(2) Participants must submit an
employment status report every six
months beginning from the date the
work-related service is to begin until the
payback obligation has been fulfilled.
(c) Cash payback. If a cash payback is
to be made, the Department contacts the
participant to establish an appropriate
schedule for payments.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 1810–
0698)
§ 263.11 What are the grantee post-award
requirements?
(a) Prior to providing funds or
services to a participant, the grantee
must conduct a payback meeting with
the participant to explain the costs of
training and payback responsibilities
following training.
(b) The grantee must report to the
Secretary all participant training and
payback information in a manner
specified by the Department or its
designee.
(c)(1) Grantees must obtain a signed
payback agreement from each
participant before the participant begins
training. The agreement must include—
(i) The estimated total training costs;
(ii) The estimated length of training;
and
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
22416
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) Information documenting that the
grantee held a payback meeting with the
participant that meets the requirements
of this section.
(2) Grantees must submit a signed
payback agreement to the Department
within seven days of signing the
payback agreement.
(d) Grantees must conduct activities
to assist participants in identifying and
securing qualifying employment
opportunities following completion of
the program.
(e)(1) Awards that are primarily for
the benefit of Indians are subject to the
provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638). That
section requires that, to the greatest
extent feasible, a grantee—
(i) Give to Indians preferences and
opportunities for training and
employment in connection with the
administration of the grant; and
(ii) Give to Indian organizations and
to Indian-owned economic enterprises,
as defined in section 3 of the Indian
Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C.
1452(e)), preference in the award of
contracts in connection with the
administration of the grant.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (e),
an Indian is a member of any federally
recognized Indian tribe.
(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b))
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 1810–
0698)
§ 263.12 What are the program-specific
requirements for continuation awards?
(a) In making continuation awards, in
addition to applying the criteria in 34
CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers the
extent to which a grantee has achieved
its project goals to recruit, retain,
graduate, and place in qualifying
employment program participants.
(b) The Secretary may reduce
continuation awards, including the
portion of awards that may be used for
administrative costs, as well as student
training costs, based on a grantee’s
failure to achieve its project goals
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children Program
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise
noted.)
§ 263.20 What definitions apply to the
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children
program?
The following definitions apply to the
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Federally supported elementary or
secondary school for Indian students
means an elementary or secondary
school that is operated or funded,
through a contract or grant, by the
Bureau of Indian Education.
Indian means an individual who is—
(1) A member of an Indian tribe or
band, as membership is defined by the
Indian tribe or band, including any tribe
or band terminated since 1940, and any
tribe or band recognized by the State in
which the tribe or band resides;
(2) A descendant of a parent or
grandparent who meets the
requirements described in paragraph (1)
of this definition;
(3) Considered by the Secretary of the
Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;
(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska
Native; or
(5) A member of an organized Indian
group that received a grant under the
Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was
in effect on October 19, 1994.
Indian institution of higher education
means an accredited college or
university within the United States
cited in section 532 of the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of
1994, any other institution that qualifies
for funding under the Tribally
Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo
Community College, authorized in the
Navajo Community College Assistance
Act of 1978.
Indian organization means an
organization that—
(1) Is legally established—
(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or
in accordance with State or tribal law;
and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the
promotion of the education of Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board,
the majority of which is Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation,
operates with the sanction of or by
charter from the governing body of that
reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or
subdivision of, nor under the direct
control of, any institution of higher
education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local
government.
Native youth community project
means a project that is—
(1) Focused on a defined local
geographic area;
(2) Centered on the goal of ensuring
that Indian students are prepared for
college and careers;
(3) Informed by evidence, which
could be either a needs assessment
conducted within the last three years or
other data analysis, on—
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(i) The greatest barriers, both in and
out of school, to the readiness of local
Indian students for college and careers;
(ii) Opportunities in the local
community to support Indian students;
and
(iii) Existing local policies, programs,
practices, service providers, and
funding sources;
(4) Focused on one or more barriers or
opportunities with a community-based
strategy or strategies and measurable
objectives;
(5) Designed and implemented
through a partnership of various
entities, which—
(i) Must include—
(A) One or more tribes or their tribal
education agencies; and
(B) One or more BIE-funded schools,
one or more local educational agencies,
or both; and
(ii) May include other optional
entities, including community-based
organizations, national nonprofit
organizations, and Alaska regional
corporations; and
(6) Led by an entity that—
(i) Is eligible for a grant under the
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program; and
(ii) Demonstrates, or partners with an
entity that demonstrates, the capacity to
improve outcomes that are relevant to
the project focus through experience
with programs funded through other
sources.
Professional development activities
means in-service training offered to
enhance the skills and abilities of
individuals that may be part of, but not
exclusively, the activities provided in a
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program.
§ 263.21 What priority is given to certain
projects and applicants?
(a) The Secretary gives priority to an
application that presents a plan for
combining two or more of the activities
described in section 7121(c) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended, over a period
of more than one year.
(b) The Secretary gives a competitive
preference priority to—
(1) An application submitted by an
Indian tribe, Indian organization, or
Indian institution of higher education
that is eligible to participate in the
Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program. A group application
submitted by a consortium that meets
the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127
through 75.129 or submitted by a
partnership is eligible to receive the
preference only if the lead applicant is
an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or
Indian institution of higher education;
or
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(2) A group application submitted by
a consortium of eligible entities that
meets the requirements of 34 CFR
75.127 through 75.129 or submitted by
a partnership if the consortium or
partnership—
(i) Includes an Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian institution of
higher education; and
(ii) Is not eligible to receive the
preference in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(c) The Secretary may give priority to
an application that meets any of the
priorities listed in this paragraph. When
inviting applications for a competition
under the Demonstration Grants
program, the Secretary designates the
type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational
through a notice inviting applications
published in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority is
described in 34 CFR 75.105.
(1) Native youth community projects.
(2) Projects in which the applicant or
one of its partners has received a grant
in the last four years under a federal
program selected by the Secretary and
announced in a notice inviting
applications published in the Federal
Register.
(3) Projects in which the applicant has
Department approval to consolidate
funding through a plan that complies
with section 7116 of the ESEA or other
authority designated by the Secretary.
(4) Projects that focus on a specific
activity authorized in section 7121(c) of
the ESEA as designated by the Secretary
in the notice inviting applications.
(5) Projects that include either—
(i) An LEA that is eligible under the
Small Rural School Achievement
(SRSA) program or the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program
authorized under title VI, part B of the
ESEA; or
(ii) A BIE-funded school that is
located in an area designated with
locale code of either 42 or 43 as
designated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7426, 7441, and 7473)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 263.22 What are the application
requirements for these grants?
(a) Each application must contain—
(1) A description of how Indian tribes
and parents of Indian children have
been, and will be, involved in
developing and implementing the
proposed activities;
(2) Assurances that the applicant will
participate, at the request of the
Secretary, in any national evaluation of
this program;
(3) Information demonstrating that the
proposed project is based on scientific
research, where applicable, or an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Apr 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
existing program that has been modified
to be culturally appropriate for Indian
students;
(4) A description of how the applicant
will continue the proposed activities
once the grant period is over; and
(5) Other assurances and information
as the Secretary may reasonably require.
(b) The Secretary may require an
applicant to satisfy any of the
requirements in this paragraph. When
inviting applications for a competition
under the Demonstration Grants
program, the Secretary establishes the
application requirements through a
notice inviting applications published
in the Federal Register. If specified in
the notice inviting applications, an
applicant must submit—
(1) Evidence, which could be either a
needs assessment conducted within the
last three years or other data analysis,
of—
(i) The greatest barriers, both in and
out of school, to the readiness of local
Indian students for college and careers;
(ii) Opportunities in the local
community to support Indian students;
and
(iii) Existing local policies, programs,
practices, service providers, and
funding sources.
(2) A copy of an agreement signed by
the partners in the proposed project,
identifying the responsibilities of each
partner in the project. The agreement
can be either—
(i) A consortium agreement that meets
the requirements of 34 CFR 75.128, if
each of the entities are eligible entities
under this program; or
(ii) Another form of partnership
agreement, such as a memorandum of
understanding or a memorandum of
agreement, if not all the partners are
eligible entities under this program.
(3) A plan, which includes
measurable objectives, to evaluate
reaching the project goal or goals.
§ 263.23 What is the Federal requirement
for Indian hiring preference that applies to
these grants?
(a) Awards that are primarily for the
benefit of Indians are subject to the
provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638). That
section requires that, to the greatest
extent feasible, a grantee—
(1) Give to Indians preferences and
opportunities for training and
employment in connection with the
administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to Indian organizations and to
Indian-owned economic enterprises, as
defined in section 3 of the Indian
Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C.
1452(e)), preference in the award of
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22417
contracts in connection with the
administration of the grant.
(b) For purposes of this section, an
Indian is a member of any federally
recognized Indian tribe.
(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b)).
[FR Doc. 2015–09396 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 386
[Docket No. 15–CRB–0009 SA (2015)]
Cost of Living Adjustment to Satellite
Carrier Compulsory License Royalty
Rates
Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Royalty Judges
announce a cost of living adjustment
(COLA) of 1.7% in the royalty rates
satellite carriers pay for a compulsory
license under the Copyright Act. The
COLA is based on the change in the
Consumer Price Index from October
2013 to October 2014.
DATES: Effective Date: April 22, 2015.
Applicability Dates: These rates are
applicable to the period January 1, 2015,
through December 31, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LaKeshia Keys, CRB Program Specialist,
by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or by
email at crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
satellite carrier compulsory license
establishes a statutory copyright
licensing scheme for the retransmission
of distant television programming by
satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. 119.
Congress created the license in 1988 and
has reauthorized the license for
additional five-year periods, most
recently with the passage of the STELA
Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law
113–200.
On August 31, 2010, the Copyright
Royalty Judges (Judges) adopted rates
for the section 119 compulsory license
for the 2010–2014 term. See 75 FR
53198. The rates were proposed by
Copyright Owners and Satellite
Carriers 1 and were unopposed. Id.
Section 119(c)(2) of the Copyright Act
provides that, effective January 1 of each
year, the Judges shall adjust the royalty
SUMMARY:
1 Program Suppliers and Joint Sports Claimants
comprised the Copyright Owners while DIRECTV,
Inc., DISH Network, LLC, and National
Programming Service, LLC, comprised the Satellite
Carriers.
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22403-22417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09396]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 263
RIN 1810-AB19
[Docket ID ED-2014-OESE-0050]
Indian Education Discretionary Grants Program; Professional
Development Program and Demonstration Grants for Indian Children
Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations that govern the
Professional Development program and the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children program (Demonstration Grants program), authorized
under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA). The regulations govern the grant application process for new
awards for each program for the next fiscal year in which competitions
are conducted for that program and subsequent years. For the
Professional Development program, the regulations enhance the project
design and quality of services to meet the objectives of the program;
establish post-award requirements; and govern the payback process for
grants in existence on the date these regulations become effective. For
the Demonstration Grants program, the regulations add new priorities,
including a priority for native youth community projects (NYCPs), and
new application requirements.
DATES: These regulations are effective May 22, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cheek, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W207, Washington, DC 20202-
6135. Telephone: (202) 401-0274 or by email: john.cheek@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
[[Page 22404]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 3, 2014, the Secretary published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Indian Education
Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program and
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program in the Federal
Register (79 FR 71930-71947).
In the preamble of the NPRM, we discussed on pages 71931 through
71938 the major changes proposed in that document to improve the
Professional Development program and the Demonstration Grants program.
These included the following:
Amending Sec. 263.3 to change the definitions of ``Indian
organization,'' ``induction services,'' and ``professional
development;'' and to remove the term, ``undergraduate degree.''
Amending Sec. 263.4 to provide greater detail about the
kinds of training costs that may be covered under the Professional
Development program.
Amending Sec. 263.5 to revise the competitive preference
priorities for tribes, Indian organizations, and Indian institutions of
higher education (IHE); to amend pre-service priorities to include
project-specific goals; and to require applicants to submit a letter of
support from an entity in the applicant's service area agreeing to
consider program graduates for qualifying employment.
Amending Sec. 263.6 to remove fixed points assigned to
each criterion; to include in the regulations only program-specific
factors and to eliminate the factors that are separately codified in 34
CFR 75.210; and to revise the selection criteria.
Amending Sec. 263.7 to specify that participants who do
not return from a leave of absence by the end of the grant period will
be considered not to have completed the program for the purposes of
project performance reporting.
Amending Sec. 263.8 to consolidate all of the regulatory
provisions that govern the payback process, currently in Sec. 263.8
through Sec. 263.10, into Sec. 263.8.
Amending Sec. 263.9 to specify the two types of deferral
that are available: Education and military service; to add a provision
for military deferrals; and to remove the provision stating that
payback begins within six months of program completion.
Amending Sec. 263.10 to eliminate the work-related
payback plan and the requirement that eligible employment must be
continuous.
Amending Sec. 263.11 to add a requirement for grantees to
conduct a payback meeting with each participant; to require that
grantees report participant and payback information to the U.S.
Department of Education (Department); to require the grantee to obtain
a signed payback agreement from each participant and submit it to the
Department; to require that grantees assist participants in finding
qualifying employment after completing the program; and to clarify that
the hiring preference provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act apply to this program.
Amending Sec. 263.12 to add to the criteria we use in
making continuation awards; and to clarify that we may reduce
continuation awards based on a grantee's failure to meet project goals.
Amending Sec. 263.20 to modify the definition of ``Indian
organization''; and to add a definition of ``native youth community
project.''
Amending Sec. 263.21 to remove the set number of
competitive preference priority points; to revise the priority for
applications submitted by Indian entities in paragraph (b), and to
propose in paragraph (c) five new priorities, including one for native
youth community projects.
Adding Sec. 263.22 to include application requirements
for the Demonstration Grants program.
Adding Sec. 263.23 to clarify that the hiring preference
provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act apply to
this program.
These final regulations contain changes from the NPRM, which are
fully explained in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this
document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, 15
parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. We discuss
substantive issues under the section number of the item to which they
pertain. Several comments did not pertain to a specific section of the
proposed regulations. We discuss these comments based on the general
topic area. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM
follows.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters expressed strong support for the
changes in the NPRM generally. One commenter requested that the
Secretary issue a tribal consultation policy.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the changes to the
Professional Development program and the Demonstration Grants program.
The tribal consultation policy is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
However, we are in the process of developing an updated tribal
consultation policy. During this process, we are consulting with
tribes, in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175.
We expect to publish this revised policy during FY 2015.
Changes: None.
Professional Development Program
General
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the Professional
Development program, and gave examples of impressive results from past
grants, which have expanded the number of American Indian teachers in
tribal communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that we ensure active collaboration
among grantees, tribes, and local schools to ensure that the training
provided under the grants meets the educational needs of local
communities.
Discussion: We expect that the competitive priority for consortia
that include a tribal entity (Sec. 263.5(a)), the new priority for
applicants with a letter of support from a school district or other
entity that will consider hiring graduates of this project (Sec.
263.5(b)(3)), and the new selection criteria for need that relates to
employment opportunities and shortages in certain fields (Sec.
263.6(a)), will all contribute to the commenter's expressed goal.
Changes: None.
Eligible Applicants (Sec. 263.2)
Comments: Several commenters objected to the requirement that a
tribal applicant (tribe or Indian organization) be required to apply in
consortium with an IHE. One commenter asked that we allow a period of
time after funding in order for a grantee to obtain a partner IHE.
Another commenter asked that we define ``in consortium with an
institution of higher education,'' in terms of the level of commitment
required from the IHE, and suggested we permit an Indian organization
to apply as a sole applicant without an IHE. This commenter also asked
whether an Indian organization can apply with more than one IHE, and if
so, what is required to demonstrate the partnerships.
Discussion: The statute requires that any eligible entity that is
not an IHE (other than a Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE)-funded school) must apply in consortium with an IHE
(section 7122 of the ESEA), and we cannot change that statutory
requirement. That eligibility requirement also precludes us from
[[Page 22405]]
permitting grantees to obtain a partner IHE after grants are made; for
entities required to be in a consortium with an IHE in order to be
eligible for a grant, the application must be from the consortium.
With regard to the level of commitment required from the IHE, we do
not believe it is necessary to prescribe the details of an arrangement
with an IHE. To demonstrate an eligible consortium, the applicant must
submit a consortium agreement that complies with the requirements of 34
CFR 75.127-129, including the requirement that the agreement detail the
activities to be performed by each member, and bind each member to
every statement and assurance in the application. The IHE is the entity
that will provide the actual education and training to Indian
individuals to enable those individuals to teach in or administer
schools serving Indians. By receiving a federally-funded education,
these individuals do not need to take on loans and other financial
obligations that can be onerous and can often dissuade students from
pursuing a career in education. The level of commitment required by the
IHE is large; the IHE educates and trains the participants, granting
them the degree needed to teach or administer in accordance with State
requirements. Often the IHE is the entity that recruits the students,
assists with job placement, provides support services during the first
year of a participant's teaching or administrative job, and complies
with the grantee reporting requirements. However, an eligible entity
partner such as an Indian organization or other nonprofit could provide
these required support services under the Professional Development
grant. It is possible for an eligible entity to apply in consortium
with more than one IHE.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that eligibility for these grants be
expanded to include national non-profit organizations.
Discussion: The eligibility requirements are statutory (see section
7122 of the ESEA) and we cannot expand eligibility beyond the statutory
authority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether two local educational agencies
(LEAs) and a particular land grant college that does not target Native
students could serve as partners for the Professional Development
program under the proposed changes. The commenter also asked whether a
regional education association (REA) is eligible to apply.
Discussion: Any number of eligible entities, in consortium with an
eligible IHE, can join together to apply for a Professional Development
grant. The IHE must be accredited to provide the coursework and level
of degree required by the project, as specified in Sec. 263.2(c). The
IHE does not have to target or serve primarily Native students;
however, in order to receive the priority for an application submitted
by an Indian entity, the IHE must be an Indian IHE that meets the
definition in Sec. 263.3. A consortium applicant must submit a
consortium agreement that complies with the requirements of 34 CFR
75.127-129. With regard to the eligibility of an REA, that entity would
need to meet the definition of one of the eligible entities: IHE, State
educational agency (SEA), LEA, Indian tribe or Indian organization, or
BIE-funded school, and would need to partner with an eligible IHE.
Changes: None.
Definitions (Sec. 263.3)
Comments: Several commenters supported the broader definition of
``Indian organization'' that provides eligibility to organizations that
have education as one of their purposes, rather than the sole purpose.
One commenter asked that we ensure that the expansion of the definition
would not preclude existing grantees from receiving funds.
Discussion: We agree that the broader definition better serves the
purposes of this program. The change in definition will not affect
existing grantees, which will continue to be eligible for continuation
awards. It also will not affect past grantees that qualified under the
more narrow definition and will continue to be eligible if they apply
for a new grant.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters asked that the definition of ``Indian
institution of higher education'' be expanded to include Native
American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs).
Discussion: ``Indian IHE'' is currently defined in Sec. 263.3 of
these regulations, and includes only tribal colleges and universities.
NASNTIs are defined in Title III, Parts A and F, of the Higher
Education Act, to mean IHEs that are not tribal colleges or
universities, but that meet certain eligibility requirements, including
a minimum number of enrolled students who are Native American. We
decline to change the definition of ``Indian IHE'' for ESEA because,
while the term ``Indian IHE'' is not defined in the ESEA, we believe
that the plain meaning of the statutory term is limited to tribal
colleges and universities, as reflected in our regulations.
Changes: None.
Priorities (Sec. 263.5)
Comments: Several commenters asked that the priority for Indian
entities in Sec. 263.5(a) be expanded to include NASNTIs. These
commenters stated that NASNTIs are often located in close proximity to
tribal communities, and gave examples, including an institution that
was founded in response to local tribal needs for qualified teachers in
reservation schools, and another institution that educates and trains
large numbers of native students to serve as teachers on a reservation.
One commenter asked that the priority include NASNTIs that partner with
a tribal college, for example, when students feed from a two-year
tribal college into a four-year NASNTI. Another commenter requested
that the priority include all IHEs that predominantly serve Native
students.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that many NASNTIs fulfill
an important role in educating Native students to serve as teachers in
tribal communities. However, Congress specifically identified in
section 7143 of the ESEA the group of entities to which we must give
priority (Indian tribes, Indian organizations, and Indian IHEs). This
group does not include NANSTIs, and we decline to expand the priority
for Indian entities to include NASNTIs. Furthermore, because non-Indian
IHEs, including those designated as NASNTI, received almost half of all
awards under this grant program over the past three years, we decline
to add an additional priority for NASNTIs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters objected to the consolidation of the
two existing priorities (in current Sec. 263.5(a) and (b)) in proposed
Sec. 263.5(a)); previously, one priority was for applications from any
tribal entity, and one priority was for a consortium that includes an
Indian IHE as fiscal agent.
Discussion: We agree with the comments about the difficulties
caused by our proposal to combine the two existing priorities into one.
The statute requires that we give priority to applications from all
three types of tribal entities: Tribes, Indian organizations, and
Indian IHEs. As proposed, the combined priority could result in a
tribal entity that is part of a consortium, but is not the fiscal agent
or lead applicant, not receiving a preference. However, when an Indian
IHE or other Indian entity is the lead applicant in a consortium, that
entity has more influence in directing and
[[Page 22406]]
administering the grant. Therefore we are revising the regulations to
create two separate priorities rather than the proposed combined one.
The first priority, in Sec. 263.5(a)(1), gives preference to an
Indian entity--tribe, organization, or IHE--either applying alone, or
in a consortium for which it serves as the lead applicant. The second
priority, in Sec. 263.5(a)(2), is for an Indian entity that is part of
a consortium but is not the lead applicant. This will satisfy the
statutory requirement to give priority to the three types of Indian
entities, while enabling us to provide a competitive preference to
applications for which the Indian entity is the sole or lead applicant.
An applicant cannot receive competitive preference points under both of
these priorities.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 263.5(a) to create two separate
competitive preference priorities. The first is for an Indian entity--
tribe, organization, or IHE--either applying alone or as lead applicant
in a consortium. The second is for an Indian entity that is part of a
consortium but is not the lead applicant.
Comment: One commenter was concerned about the requirement that a
consortium applicant would be eligible for the priority in proposed
Sec. 263.5(a) only if an Indian IHE leads the consortium as fiscal
agent. The commenter stated that the high overhead costs of IHEs limit
the funding delivered directly to the program, and that the requirement
would limit flexibility for an entity that trains teachers and
administrators by working with a variety of IHEs to provide the
required coursework. This commenter suggested that, alternatively, an
Indian organization should be able to serve as lead applicant or fiscal
agent in a consortium, and be eligible for the priority.
Discussion: Our goal was to ensure that, in order to receive
competitive preference points, a consortium would be led by an Indian
entity. We agree with the commenter, however, that the proposed
requirement that the lead of the consortium must be an IHE was too
narrow. We agree that it is possible for an Indian organization to
operate a Professional Development grant in consortium with an IHE, and
for the Indian organization to be the actual lead entity for the
project. The same is true for a tribe as lead applicant. The tribe or
Indian organization would receive the grant and provide the funding to
the IHE to pay for the cost of the participants' education. We agree
that this could result in more direct funding for student training.
Therefore, we are revising the priority in Sec. 263.5(a)(1) to permit
a consortium to receive a competitive preference if the lead applicant
is an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian IHE. Before awarding
priority points, we will examine the proposed project and activities to
ensure that the Indian entity will in fact be serving as lead entity
for the project.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 263.5(a)(1) to provide that a
consortium may receive a competitive preference if the lead applicant
is an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian IHE.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our internal review we reexamined the proposed
requirement that the Indian entity leading a consortium must be the
fiscal agent in order to receive priority points. While not common, we
recognize that it is possible to have a fiscal agent that is not the
lead applicant. Accordingly, in Sec. 263.5(a)(1) we are revising the
proposed requirement that an Indian entity be the ``fiscal agent,'' to
instead require that the Indian entity be the lead applicant, which is
the entity that receives the grant.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 263.5(a) to change the preference
for consortia in which the fiscal agent is an Indian entity, to
consortia in which the lead applicant is an Indian entity.
Comments: Several commenters were generally concerned that the
proposed priority in Sec. 263.5(a) would prevent entities other than
tribal entities from obtaining grants.
Discussion: Due to the confusion evident in some comments, we are
clarifying that the priorities in Sec. 263.5(a) for tribal entities
are competitive preference priorities. We will not use those priorities
as absolute priorities, but we will use them as competitive preference
priorities in each year of a new competition. If they were absolute
priorities, then a non-tribal IHE would not be eligible to receive a
grant, which would be inconsistent with the statutory list of eligible
entities. This is different from the priorities in Sec. 263.5(b),
which we can designate as absolute or competitive in any year, or can
decline to use.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 263.5(a) to clarify that the
priorities for tribal entities are competitive preference priorities.
Comments: One commenter objected to removing the point values from
the priorities for applications submitted by Indian entities, arguing
that it would cause confusion for applicants and that applicants may
not have timely information about eligibility requirements. Another
commenter was opposed to removing the five-point priority for tribal
colleges. Another commenter suggested that we rely upon letters of
support to show collaboration but not assign preference points for
partnerships.
Discussion: We removed the specific number of points from the
priorities for Indian entities, including the five points for tribal
colleges, so that we have the flexibility to assign more (or fewer)
points in a particular grant competition. This will allow us to provide
additional points as needed in any application year to ensure that
tribal entities, including tribal colleges, are eligible to receive a
competitive preference. We do not believe this will confuse applicants.
For each year in which we have a competition for new awards, we will
announce the points for the tribal entity preferences in the notice
inviting applications. Typically the notice is published 60 days in
advance of the application deadline.
With regard to the comment objecting to the awarding of competitive
preference points for partnerships, eligible entities for this program
include consortia, and we are required by statute to give priority to
Indian entities; thus consortia that include such Indian entities will
receive priority under revised Sec. 263.5(a). An Indian IHE, however,
that applies as the lead applicant in a consortium would receive no
advantage, under Sec. 263.5(a), over an Indian IHE that is the sole
applicant, because both scenarios are included in Sec. 263.5(a)(1) and
would receive an equal number of competitive preference points. With
respect to letters of support, Sec. 263.5(b)(3) adds a new priority
for applicants that include in their applications a letter of support
from an entity, including a local school district, that agrees to
consider program graduates for qualifying employment. We believe that
such letters of support strengthen the likelihood that graduates will
find employment in schools serving Indian students following their
training.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked whether we are removing the absolute
priority for pre-service training. Several commenters requested that we
permit the use of funds to support and train Indian individuals in
obtaining masters and doctoral degrees under the priorities in proposed
Sec. 263.5(b) for pre-service training for teachers and
administrators.
Discussion: We have not removed the priority for pre-service
training, and in any grant competition in which the Department uses
this priority, we retain the discretion to designate that priority an
absolute priority (see Sec. 263.5(b)).
[[Page 22407]]
With regard to masters and doctoral degrees, funds under the
Professional Development program can be used to support a student in
obtaining any degree that is required by the State for the teaching or
administrative position for which individuals are being trained.
However, the focus of this program is on preparing teachers and
administrators for elementary and secondary education. The current
regulations include graduate degrees as part of the definitions of
``full-time student'' and ``pre-service training'' in Sec. 263.3, and
we have not changed those definitions. However, we are providing
further clarification in the priorities for pre-service training for
teachers and administrators by removing the references to bachelor's
degrees for teachers and master's degrees for administrators so that a
student pursuing a higher-level degree may be supported as a
participant under this program if that degree is required for a
specific position. However, because we interpret the statute to support
only the preparation of teachers and administrators in elementary and
secondary education, we are not expanding the scope of the program to
include doctoral degrees for Indian students seeking employment in
higher education.
Changes: We have revised the priorities for pre-service training in
proposed Sec. Sec. 263.5(b)(1) and (2) to remove the references to a
``bachelor's degree'' for pre-service teacher training, and, for
administrator training, changing the reference from ``master's degree''
to ``graduate degree.''
Comments: None.
Discussion: During our internal review we analyzed the existing
requirements in the priorities for pre-service teacher training and
administrator training (in current Sec. 263.5(c), proposed Sec.
263.5(b)) and believe it would be helpful to clarify certain
provisions. We are revising the regulation to make clear that the
requirement that training be provided before the end of the award
period applies to all three situations: An education degree, a subject-
matter degree, and specialized training. We are removing the exception
for a fifth year from the education degree provision because a review
of funded projects shows that this exception is not necessary. We are
also removing, in the provision on degrees in a subject area (new Sec.
263.5(b)(1)(i)(B)), the reference to the requirement that training meet
the requirements for full State certification or licensure, because it
is redundant with the introductory language of that paragraph.
Changes: We have revised the priority for pre-service training for
teachers in proposed Sec. 263.5(b)(1) by moving the reference to
earning a degree before the end of the award period from proposed Sec.
263.5(b)(1)(i)(a) to the introductory language of final Sec.
263.5(b)(1)(i), by removing the proposed exception for a fifth year
from Sec. 263.5(b)(1)(i)(A), and by removing the reference to the
requirement that training meets the requirements for full State
certification or licensure from proposed Sec. 263.5(b)(1)(i)(B).
Selection Criteria (Sec. 263.6)
Comments: One commenter objected to the job market analysis element
of the selection criterion for ``Need for Project'' in proposed Sec.
263.6, and stated that this would increase the burden for applicants to
search for and interpret market analysis data. The commenter also
requested that appropriate market analysis Web site links be made
available to applicants.
Discussion: Under the selection criterion ``Need for Project'' in
Sec. 263.6, we will evaluate the extent to which the proposed project
will prepare personnel in specific fields, and the extent to which
employment opportunities exist in the project's service area, with both
elements to be demonstrated by a job market analysis. The purpose of a
job market analysis is to determine whether there is a need for
qualified education personnel to fill vacancies in teacher and
administrator positions within the geographic region to be served. To
conduct the job market analysis, applicants can use accessible data
sources at the national, State and local level to determine current and
future teacher and administrator shortages in selected fields. Because
job market data are now generally available online, a market analysis
would not increase an applicant's burden. We also note that prior
applicants under the current regulations also addressed need for
personnel, documenting education personnel shortages in the region to
be served and designing their proposed programs accordingly.
Accessible resources for determining teacher shortages are
available at the national level; however, applicants should rely on
State and local sources for more accurate and timely data. We also note
that this is an element of a selection criterion, not an application
requirement, so it is optional for applicants to address, although we
encourage all applicants to do so.
Changes: None.
Payback Requirements (Sec. 263.8)
Comments: Commenters supported the proposed regulations clarifying
the payback requirements and procedures.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for these changes.
Changes: None.
Demonstration Grants Program
General
Comments: Several commenters were generally supportive of the
proposed changes to the Demonstration Grants program regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the changes.
Changes: None.
Definitions (Sec. 263.20)
Comments: Several commenters addressed the proposed definition of
``Indian organization'' as it applies to both this program and the
Professional Development program; it is the same definition for both
programs.
Discussion: We address those comments under the discussion of
Definitions for the Professional Development program (Sec. 263.3).
Changes: None.
Definition of Native Youth Community Project
Comments: Several commenters supported the proposed definition of
``Native Youth Community Project,'' and specifically the requirement
that a community come together to address the adverse experiences
affecting Indian children. However, several other commenters expressed
concern that the requirement for a partnership among the specified
entities could adversely affect the success of some applications. For
example, one commenter was concerned that some applicants do not have
readily available partner organizations, which would reduce the
likelihood that such applicants would receive funding.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for encouraging partnerships
among entities to more effectively address the complex barriers facing
native youth. We believe that greater collaboration among the
organizations increases the likelihood that an NYCP will improve the
college and career readiness of Indian youth. Furthermore, we believe
that proposed projects that demonstrate the existence of a partnership
at the time of application are more likely to become strong, viable
projects. Therefore, we disagree with the commenters who objected to
the partnership requirement.
While we cannot ensure that partnerships and agreements formed in
order to apply for a grant will stand the
[[Page 22408]]
test of time, we believe that an applicant with a formal partnership
agreement will have a greater chance of success than an applicant with
only letters of support. We expect that in ranking applications,
reviewers will judge the quality of the partnerships presented in those
application, based on the selection criteria. Moreover, a partnership
that fails after being awarded a grant would not be able to show
substantial progress in order to receive continuation funding.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that we not give priority to
applicants simply because of their geographic proximity to locally
available and willing partners.
Discussion: We agree that if a community comes together to create
an NYCP, that partnership should have the flexibility to include non-
local partners. A tribe and school district may wish to engage with a
national nonprofit organization that is skilled in addressing the focus
of the local project, whether it is academic success, drug prevention,
parental engagement in schools, or any other project focus. Therefore
we are broadening part of the definition of NYCP; rather than requiring
the applicant or a partner to show that it has the capacity to improve
outcomes for Indian students, we are requiring the applicant or a
partner to demonstrate that it has the capacity to improve outcomes
that are relevant to the project focus. This allows an applicant to
partner with a national organization that has demonstrated the capacity
to improve outcomes that are relevant to the project focus, and not be
limited to locally available and willing partners. There is a statutory
application requirement that projects must be based either on
scientific research or on an existing program that has been modified to
be culturally appropriate for Indian students (see Sec. 263.22(a)(3).
Thus, an applicant that partners with an entity that has demonstrated
success with non-Indian students, and proposes to use that entity's
program model, will need to explain how it has modified that program to
be culturally appropriate.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (6) of the definition of NYCP in
Sec. 263.20 to provide that an applicant or a partner must have
demonstrated the capacity to improve outcomes that are relevant to the
project focus.
Comment: One commenter requested that we ensure that States and
local public schools actively participate and coordinate with tribal
grantees.
Discussion: We are requiring that at least one tribe and at least
one local school district be partners in a proposed project. We are not
requiring State involvement, although States may be partners in a
project. Because of the focus on local community-driven solutions, it
would not be appropriate to require a State's involvement.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters asked that we include tribal colleges in
NYCP partnerships, and one asked that we include both tribal colleges
and NASNTIs.
Discussion: Tribal colleges are eligible entities under the
Demonstration Grants program, and nothing in the regulations precludes
either a tribal college or a NASNTI from being a partner in an NYCP.
Although we agree that a college or university could be a valuable
partner in an NYCP, we decline to make tribal colleges or any other
IHEs mandatory partners in NYCPs, because the focus of these projects
is a local community area, and not all tribal communities have a
college in the vicinity.
Changes: None.
Comments: We received several comments asking whether one NYCP can
include multiple tribes. We also received additional comments
expressing the concern that urban communities often include Indian
youth from many different tribes, and that urban applicants might face
unfair challenges in partnering with tribes or their tribal education
agencies because of the distance between the tribes and the urban
communities in which the Indian youth live and attend school. Another
commenter expressed concern that a partnering tribe would refuse to
serve youth from other tribes. Some commenters specifically requested
that we eliminate the requirement that applicants form a partnership
with a tribe. Another commenter asked whether one tribe can participate
in more than one NYCP.
Discussion: Nothing in the definition of NYCP prohibits a project
from including multiple tribes as partners. To meet the NYCP
definition, applicants must identify and address significant barriers
and needs within a local community. It is likely that in many areas,
including urban areas, Indian youth and their families from many tribes
live within a defined local community. Also, members of one tribe often
live in several different communities. The entities responsible for
Indian youth in the identified local community should partner with one
another. We agree that certain NYCP applicants may need to partner with
multiple tribes or their tribal education agencies in order to address
the identified need in the local community. We are therefore clarifying
in the final regulations that partnerships can include more than one
tribe.
However, we disagree with the commenters that it is unfair to urban
areas to require applicants to partner with one or more tribes. The
NYCPs are intended to support the involvement of tribes in the
education of Indian children, which is one of the goals of title VII of
the ESEA. Each project must therefore include a partnership among a
school district or BIE-funded school, a tribe or its education agency,
and other organizations as necessary, to address the need identified by
the project. The partnering entities must agree to serve the Indian
youth living in the defined local community, regardless of their tribal
membership.
With regard to whether one tribe can participate in more than one
NYCP, nothing in the regulations prohibits such participation.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (5)(i) of the definition of NYCP
in Sec. 263.20 to include one or more tribes or their tribal education
agencies.
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement that NYCPs
include a school district as a partner, arguing that this would lead to
more bureaucracy and undue attention to the school district's own
programs as opposed to those favored by a qualifying Indian
organization.
Discussion: We believe that schools, tribes, and Indian
organizations similarly value better outcomes for Indian youth,
including academic achievement and readiness for postsecondary
education and employment. The NYCPs are intended to leverage the
resources and capacity currently spread among tribes, LEAs, BIE-funded
schools, or other organizations, through a partnership to increase the
likelihood of reaching these better outcomes. We believe that,
especially for communities where most American Indian/Alaska Native
(AI/AN) students attend the local public schools, the inclusion of the
LEA in these projects is essential to the success of the projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department should revise
the definition of NYCP to allow for a project to include a partnership
with organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club of America.
Discussion: Paragraph (5) of the NCYP definition permits community
organizations to be included in a partnership. However, we do not
recommend any specific community organizations as partners in an NYCP.
The applicants must determine which entities are necessary partners in
order
[[Page 22409]]
to address the identified need of the Indian youth in the local
community to be served by the NYCP.
Changes: None.
Definition of ``Rural''
Comment: One commenter requested that we add a definition of
``rural'' in the final regulations.
Discussion: There is no need to define ``rural'' because the
priority for rural applicants under Sec. 263.21(c)(5) explains which
entities are considered rural. We include further discussion of the
rural priority under the Priorities section of the Analysis of Comments
and Changes in this notice.
Changes: None.
Priorities (Sec. 263.21)
Comments: Several commenters supported our proposal to expand the
Demonstration Grants program beyond the two absolute priorities of
early childhood and college readiness. One commenter further commended
the Department for supporting complex projects to address the complex
issues facing some Indian communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priorities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters generally objected to the proposed
revisions to the priorities in Sec. 263.21(b), and to the parallel
provision in the Professional Development regulations. One objected to
removing the priority preference for consortia that include an Indian
entity; another commenter objected to removing the required number of
priority preference points.
Discussion: The statute for both the Professional Development and
Demonstration Grants requires that we give priority to applications
from all three types of tribal entities: Tribes, Indian organizations,
and Indian IHEs. We proposed to remove the priority for consortia that
include a tribal entity because a tribal entity that is not a sole
applicant or lead applicant in a consortium does not necessarily have
the influence that a sole applicant, or lead applicant in a consortium,
has. However, if we only give priority when the Indian entity is the
lead applicant, it would result in a tribal entity receiving no
preference when it is part of a consortium but not the lead applicant.
Therefore we are creating two separate priorities for the Demonstration
Grants, similar to those created for the Professional Development
Grants. The first priority, in Sec. 263.21(b)(1), gives preference to
an Indian entity--tribe, organization, or IHE--either applying alone,
or in a consortium or partnership if it serves as the lead applicant.
The second priority, in Sec. 263.21(b)(2), is for an Indian entity
that is part of a consortium or partnership but is not the lead
applicant. This will enable us to satisfy the statutory requirement to
give priority to the three types of Indian entities, while retaining
the ability to provide more points to applications for which the Indian
entity is the sole or lead applicant. Applicants cannot receive points
under both of these priorities.
With regard to the concern about removing point values from the
regulations, we have removed the five-point limitation for both
priorities so that we have the flexibility to assign more (or fewer)
points as needed to ensure that applicants from tribal entities have an
advantage over other applicants.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 263.21(b) to create two separate
competitive preference priorities. The first priority is for an Indian
entity--tribe, organization, or IHE--either applying alone or as lead
applicant in a consortium or partnership. The second is for an Indian
entity that is part of a consortium or partnership but is not the lead
applicant.
Comments: One commenter objected to the revisions in Sec.
263.21(c) that would give the Department discretion to choose specific
priorities for a competition in any given year. The commenter stated
that changing the priorities would make it hard for long-term grantees
to create stable programs across multiple years.
Discussion: Under Sec. 263.21(c), the Department has the
discretion to choose any of the listed priorities in any year the
Department conducts a grant competition for this program. This is
consistent with the previous provisions in the same paragraph, which
provided that the Department could choose among three different
priorities in any given year, although all of those were absolute
priorities. We recognize that potential applicants will need to respond
to the priorities as published under each notice inviting applications.
However, grantees will have the full grant period, typically 48 months,
to implement their projects. We also note that there is no guarantee
that a grantee under a discretionary grant program will receive another
grant under the same program at the end of its grant period. The
revisions to the priorities in Sec. 263.21(c) enable the Secretary to
prioritize projects that address the needs of the target communities.
Changes: None.
Priority for Native Youth Community Project (NYCP) (Sec. 263.21(c)(1))
Comments: Several commenters supported the proposed priority for
NYCP; one commenter mentioned the benefits of collaboration between
tribes and schools and noted how out-of-school environments
significantly affect in-classroom success. Other commenters requested
that we support parent and family engagement in funding NYCPs.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the NYCP priority. We
agree that parent and family engagement both in school and in the
community is a crucial component in efforts to improve the outcomes of
all children, including Indian children and youth. Each applicant must
include in its application a description of how parents of Indian
children have been and will be involved in developing and implementing
the proposed activities, as required by Sec. 263.22(a)(1). In
addition, an existing AI/AN parent organization or tribal parent
committee could serve as a valuable partner in an NYCP.
Changes: None.
Priority for Grantees Under Other Programs (Sec. 263.21(c)(2))
Comments: Several commenters objected to the priority for
applicants that have been awarded grants under other programs. One
commenter stated that Indian organizations would be unfairly excluded
under this priority, which would interfere with their ability to
receive funding. Another commenter stated that the priority would
provide undue advantage to applicants that are already receiving
Federal funds.
Discussion: This priority is designed to increase the likelihood
that funded projects will attain their goals. The Demonstration Grants
program is intended to target the most persistent issues facing Indian
children, and to provide models that others can use. Grantees with
existing resources to leverage are likely to have greater opportunities
to address the needs of Indian children and to provide models that can
be disseminated broadly.
Although we did not receive a comment requesting clarification, the
proposed regulations did not state the timeframe within which
applicants must have received these other awards in order to qualify
for this preference. We are clarifying that, to receive preference
under this priority, the lead applicant or its partner must have
received an award within the last four years. A longer period of time
would make it less likely that the grantee could build on the
experience gained by that grant.
[[Page 22410]]
Changes: We have revised Sec. 263.21(c)(2) to provide that the
applicant or one of its partners must have received an award under a
selected program within the last four years in order to receive this
preference.
Comment: One commenter objected to the priority for applicants that
consolidate funds through a plan that complies with section 7116 of the
ESEA or other authority. The commenter argued that this preference
would unduly favor tribes, which manage multiple programs, as opposed
to Indian organizations that have a more narrow focus.
Discussion: The purpose of the priority in Sec. 263.21(c)(3) for
entities that have Department approval to consolidate funds is to
encourage entities to take advantage of measures available to them to
reduce duplication and bureaucracy, such as the authority under section
7116 of the ESEA for consolidation of funding designed to benefit
Indian students. Even though we recognize that not every eligible
entity will be able to take advantage of this priority, we seek to
encourage this consolidation in order to increase the impact of Federal
funding by reducing duplication of effort.
Changes: None.
Rural Priority (Sec. 263.21(c)(5))
Comments: We received several comments regarding the competitive
preference priority for rural applicants. Some commenters commended our
efforts to address the needs associated with rural poverty. However,
other commenters stated that urban areas, like rural communities, face
the challenges of poverty. Several commenters stated that projects
serving urban communities and those serving rural communities should
not be required to compete for funding. One commenter stated that more
American Indian children live in urban than in rural areas. Several
commenters argued that because the Department's Impact Aid program
compensates school districts in rural areas, such districts should not
receive a priority under this program. A commenter also argued that the
Department should allocate more funds to Impact Aid programs in order
to address rural poverty, rather than providing a priority under this
program.
Discussion: Based on the Common Core of Data reported by SEAs in
school year 2012-2013, nearly one-third of AI/AN children are enrolled
in rural school districts, whereas fewer than one-fourth of AI/AN
children live in city school districts. Therefore, we believe that
giving preference to rural districts will appropriately focus on the
geographical areas with proportionately larger populations of Indian
children.
Furthermore, we believe that the solutions to educational
challenges may be different in rural communities than in urban
communities and that there is a need for solutions that are unique to
rural communities. The scarcity of services and resources available in
rural communities may require additional attention to address these
needs.
With regard to the argument concerning the Impact Aid program, we
note that not all rural school districts receive Impact Aid funding,
often because they do not meet the eligibility requirements. For
example, compared to the more than 1,200 school districts that receive
title VII formula grants for Indian students, fewer than 700 school
districts receive Impact Aid funding for students residing on Indian
lands. Moreover, Impact Aid funds are intended to replace lost tax
revenues or increased expenses due to a Federal presence. The Impact
Aid funds are considered general aid to the recipient school districts,
and they may use the funds in whatever manner they choose in accordance
with their local and State requirements. Thus a school district that
receives Impact Aid may be as much in need of supplemental funding for
Indian students through the Demonstration Grants program as any other
school district.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our internal review of the proposed priority for
rural applicants in Sec. 263.21(c)(5), we reviewed again whether all
BIE-funded schools serve rural locales and determined that not all BIE-
funded schools serve those locales. Accordingly, we are revising the
regulations to add a reference to the census locale codes as the
indicator for BIE-funded schools that would be considered rural for
purposes of this priority.
Changes: We have revised the language in Sec. 263.21(c)(5) with
regard to BIE-funded schools to add that, to meet the rural priority,
they must be in locale codes 42 or 43, as designated by the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Application Requirements (Sec. 263.22)
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.
263.22(b)(2) that applicants submit a written agreement between the
partners in a proposed project.
Discussion: This is an application requirement that the Department
may choose to use in any year of a new competition. For a priority such
as the NYCP priority, we would select this application requirement
because it would be essential for such a project to show agreement
between the required partners. For other priorities, such as a priority
for early learning projects, this requirement may not be appropriate.
We will publish the selected application requirements in the notice
inviting applications in the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our internal review of the proposed application
requirements, we noted that the requirement to submit measureable
objectives in Sec. 263.22(b)(3) insufficiently communicated the
expectation for the project to use the measureable objectives in
evaluating the progress toward and success in meeting its goal or
goals. Accordingly, we are revising the regulations to include a
project evaluation plan.
Changes: We have revised the language in Sec. 263.22(b)(3) to
clarify that the applicant must submit, in response to a notice
inviting applications published in the Federal Register, an evaluation
plan that includes measureable objectives.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (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 final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
[[Page 22411]]
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 on 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 final regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits 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 final regulations are consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does 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 statutory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The potential costs associated
with the priorities and requirements would be minimal while the
potential benefits are significant.
For Professional Development grants, applicants may anticipate
costs in developing their applications and time spent reporting
participant payback information in the Data Collection System (DCS).
Additional costs would be associated with participant and employer
information entered in the DCS, but program funds would pay for the
costs of carrying out these activities.
The benefits include enhancing project design and quality of
services to better meet the program objectives, with the end result
that more participants successfully complete their programs of study
and obtain employment as teachers and administrators.
For the Demonstration Grants program, applicants may anticipate
costs associated with developing a partnership agreement and providing
evidence of a local needs assessment or data analysis. These
requirements should improve the quality of projects funded and
conducted under these grants, and we believe the benefits of these
improvements will outweigh the costs. Elsewhere in this section, under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and explain burdens
specifically associated with information collection requirements.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 263.6, 263.10, 263.11 and 263.22 Indian Education
Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program and
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program contain information
collection requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a
copy of these sections and related application forms to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. In accordance
with the PRA, the OMB Control number associated with the Professional
Development final regulations, related application forms, and ICRs for
section 263.6, is OMB approved 1810-0580, and for sections 263.10 and
263.11 it is OMB approved 1810-0698. The Department also submitted to
OMB for its review and approval a new Information Collection Request
(ICR) for control number 1810--New Application for Demonstration Grants
for Indian Children Program for section 263.22. An approved OMB control
number will be assigned to this new ICR at the time of publication of
the final rule.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Intergovernmental Review
These programs are subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of
the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes
developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of
proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on our review, we have determined that these final
regulations do not require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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
[[Page 22412]]
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:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.299A
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program; 84.299B
Professional Development Program)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 263
Business and industry, Colleges and universities, Elementary and
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Grant program--Indians,
Indians--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Scholarships and fellowships.
Dated: April 17, 2015.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education amends title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations by
revising part 263 to read as follows:
PART 263--INDIAN EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS
Subpart A--Professional Development Program
Sec.
263.1 What is the Professional Development Program?
263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the Professional Development
program?
263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
program?
263.4 What costs may a Professional Development program include?
263.5 What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?
263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
Professional Development program?
263.7 What are the requirements for a leave of absence?
263.8 What are the payback requirements?
263.9 What are the requirements for payback deferral?
263.10 What are the participant payback reporting requirements?
263.11 What are the grantee post-award requirements?
263.12 What are the program-specific requirements for continuation
awards?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart B--Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program
Sec.
263.20 What definitions apply to the Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children program?
263.21 What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?
263.22 What are the application requirements for these grants?
263.23 What is the Federal requirement for Indian hiring preference
that applies to these grants?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--Professional Development Program
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 263.1 What is the Professional Development program?
(a) The Professional Development program provides grants to
eligible entities to--
(1) Increase the number of qualified Indian individuals in
professions that serve Indian people;
(2) Provide training to qualified Indian individuals to become
teachers, administrators, teacher aides, social workers, and ancillary
educational personnel; and
(3) Improve the skills of qualified Indian individuals who serve in
the education field.
(b) The Professional Development program requires individuals who
receive training to--
(1) Perform work related to the training received under the program
and that benefits Indian people, or to repay all or a prorated part of
the assistance received under the program; and
(2) Periodically report to the Secretary on the individual's
compliance with the work requirement until work-related payback is
complete or the individual has been referred for cash payback.
Sec. 263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the Professional
Development program?
(a) In order to be eligible for either pre-service or in-service
training programs, an applicant must be an eligible entity which
means--
(1) An institution of higher education, including an Indian
institution of higher education;
(2) A State educational agency in consortium with an institution of
higher education;
(3) A local educational agency (LEA) in consortium with an
institution of higher education;
(4) An Indian tribe or Indian organization in consortium with an
institution of higher education; or
(5) A Bureau of Indian Education (Bureau)-funded school.
(b) Bureau-funded schools are eligible applicants for--
(1) An in-service training program; and
(2) A pre-service training program when the Bureau-funded school
applies in consortium with an institution of higher education that is
accredited to provide the coursework and level of degree required by
the project.
(c) Eligibility of an applicant requiring a consortium with any
institution of higher education, including Indian institutions of
higher education, requires that the institution of higher education be
accredited to provide the coursework and level of degree required by
the project.
Sec. 263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
program?
The following definitions apply to the Professional Development
program:
Bureau-funded school means a Bureau of Indian Education school, a
contract or grant school, or a school for which assistance is provided
under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
Department means the U.S. Department of Education.
Dependent allowance means costs for the care of minor children
under the age of 18 who reside with the training participant and for
whom the participant has responsibility. The term does not include
financial obligations for payment of child support required of the
participant.
Full course load means the number of credit hours that the
institution requires of a full-time student.
Full-time student means a student who--
(1) Is a degree candidate for a baccalaureate or graduate degree;
(2) Carries a full course load; and
(3) Is not employed for more than 20 hours a week.
Good standing means a cumulative grade point average of at least
2.0 on a 4.0 grade point scale in which failing grades are computed as
part of the average, or another appropriate standard established by the
institution.
Graduate degree means a post-baccalaureate degree awarded by an
institution of higher education.
Indian means an individual who is--
(1) A member of an Indian tribe or band, as membership is defined
by the Indian tribe or band, including any tribe or band terminated
since 1940, and any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the
tribe or band resides;
(2) A descendant of a parent or grandparent who meets the
requirements of paragraph (1) of this definition;
(3) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for
any purpose;
(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or
(5) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant
under the
[[Page 22413]]
Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was in effect on October 19, 1994.
Indian institution of higher education means an accredited college
or university within the United States cited in section 532 of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, any other
institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled
College or University Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo Community
College, authorized in the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of
1978.
Indian organization means an organization that--
(1) Is legally established--
(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State
or tribal law; and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of
incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of
Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is
Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction
or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the
direct control of, any institution of higher education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
Induction services means services provided after participants
complete their training program and during their first year of
teaching. Induction services support and improve participants'
professional performance and promote their retention in the field of
education and teaching. They include, at a minimum, these activities:
(1) High-quality mentoring, coaching, and consultation services for
the participant to improve performance;
(2) Access to research materials and information on teaching and
learning;
(3) Assisting new teachers with use of technology in the classroom
and use of data, particularly student achievement data, for classroom
instruction;
(4) Clear, timely and useful feedback on performance, provided in
coordination with the participant's supervisor; and
(5) Periodic meetings or seminars for participants to enhance
collaboration, feedback, and peer networking and support.
In-service training means activities and opportunities designed to
enhance the skills and abilities of individuals in their current areas
of employment.
Institution of higher education means an accredited college or
university within the United States that awards a baccalaureate or
post-baccalaureate degree.
Participant means an Indian individual who is being trained under
the Professional Development program.
Payback means work-related service or cash reimbursement to the
Department of Education for the training received under the
Professional Development program.
Pre-service training means training to Indian individuals to
prepare them to meet the requirements for licensing or certification in
a professional field requiring at least a baccalaureate degree.
Professional development activities means pre-service or in-service
training offered to enhance the skills and abilities of individual
participants.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Education or an
official or employee of the Department acting for the Secretary under a
delegation of authority.
Stipend means that portion of an award that is used for room,
board, and personal living expenses for full-time participants who are
living at or near the institution providing the training.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442 and 7491)
Sec. 263.4 What costs may a Professional Development program include?
(a) A Professional Development program may include, as training
costs, assistance to--
(1) Fully finance a student's educational expenses including
tuition, books, and required fees; health insurance required by the
institution of higher education; stipend; dependent allowance;
technology costs; program required travel; and instructional supplies;
or
(2) Supplement other financial aid, including Federal funding other
than loans, for meeting a student's educational expenses.
(b) The Secretary announces the expected maximum amounts for
stipends and dependent allowance in the annual notice inviting
applications published in the Federal Register.
(c) Other costs that a Professional Development program may
include, but that must not be included as training costs, include costs
for--
(1) Collaborating with prospective employers within the grantees'
local service area to create a pool of potentially available qualifying
employment opportunities;
(2) In-service training activities such as providing mentorships
linking experienced teachers at job placement sites with program
participants; and
(3) Assisting participants in identifying and securing qualifying
employment opportunities in their field of study following completion
of the program.
Sec. 263.5 What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?
(a) The Secretary gives competitive preference priority to--
(1) An application submitted by an Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or an Indian institution of higher education that is
eligible to participate in the Professional Development program. A
consortium application of eligible entities that meets the requirements
of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and includes an Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian institution of higher education will be
considered eligible to receive preference under this priority only if
the lead applicant for the consortium is the Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian institution of higher education. In order to be
considered a consortium application, the application must include the
consortium agreement, signed by all parties; or
(2) A consortium application of eligible entities that--
(i) Meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and
includes an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian institution of
higher education; and
(ii) Is not eligible to receive a preference under paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
(b) The Secretary may annually establish as a priority any of the
priorities listed in this paragraph. When inviting applications for a
competition under the Professional Development program, the Secretary
designates the type of each priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register.
The effect of each type of priority is described in 34 CFR 75.105.
(1) Pre-Service training for teachers. The Secretary establishes a
priority for projects that--
(i) Provide support and training to Indian individuals to complete
a pre-service education program before the end of the award period that
enables the individuals to meet the requirements for full State
certification or licensure as a teacher through--
(A) Training that leads to a degree in education;
(B) For States allowing a degree in a specific subject area,
training that leads to a degree in the subject area; or
(C) Training in a current or new specialized teaching assignment
that requires a degree and in which a documented teacher shortage
exists;
(ii) Provide one year of induction services, during the award
period, to
[[Page 22414]]
participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, while they
are completing their first year of work in schools with significant
Indian student populations; and
(iii) Include goals for the--
(A) Number of participants to be recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find qualifying jobs within twelve
months of completion.
(2) Pre-service administrator training. The Secretary establishes a
priority for projects that--
(i) Provide support and training to Indian individuals to complete
a graduate degree in education administration that is provided before
the end of the award period and that allows participants to meet the
requirements for State certification or licensure as an education
administrator;
(ii) Provide one year of induction services, during the award
period, to participants after graduation, certification, or licensure,
while they are completing their first year of work as administrators in
schools with significant Indian student populations; and
(iii) Include goals for the--
(A) Number of participants to be recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find qualifying jobs within twelve
months of completion.
(3) Letter of support. The Secretary establishes a priority for
applicants that include a letter of support signed by the authorized
representative of an LEA or Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE)-funded school or other entity in the applicant's
service area that agrees to consider program graduates for qualifying
employment.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442 and 7473)
Sec. 263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
Professional Development program?
The Secretary uses the procedures for establishing selection
criteria and factors in 34 CFR 75.200 through 75.210 to establish the
criteria and factors used to evaluate applications submitted in a grant
competition for the Professional Development program. The Secretary may
also consider one or more of the criteria and factors listed in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section to evaluate applications.
(a) Need for project. In determining the need for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel
in specific fields in which shortages have been demonstrated through a
job market analysis.
(2) The extent to which employment opportunities exist in the
project's service area, as demonstrated through a job market analysis.
(b) Significance. In determining the significance of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following:
(1) The potential of the proposed project to develop effective
strategies for teaching Indian students and improving Indian student
achievement, as demonstrated by a plan to share findings gained from
the proposed project with parties who could benefit from such findings,
such as other institutions of higher education who are training
teachers and administrators who will be serving Indian students.
(2) The likelihood that the proposed project will build local
capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the
specific needs of Indian students.
(c) Quality of the project design. The Secretary considers one or
more of the following factors in determining the quality of the design
of the proposed project:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are ambitious but also attainable and
address--
(i) The number of participants expected to be recruited in the
project each year;
(ii) The number of participants expected to continue in the project
each year;
(iii) The number of participants expected to graduate; and
(iv) The number of participants expected to find qualifying jobs
within twelve months of completion.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for
recruiting and selecting participants that ensures that program
participants are likely to complete the program.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate the
needs of potential employers, as identified by a job market analysis,
by establishing partnerships and relationships with appropriate
entities (e.g., Bureau-funded schools, organizations providing
educational services to Indian students, and LEAs) and developing
programs that meet their employment needs.
(d) Quality of project services. The Secretary considers one or
more of the following factors in determining the quality of project
services:
(1) The likelihood that the proposed project will provide
participants with learning experiences that develop needed skills for
successful teaching and/or administration in schools with significant
Indian populations.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project prepares participants
to adapt teaching and/or administrative practices to meet the breadth
of Indian student needs.
(3) The extent to which the applicant will provide job placement
activities that reflect the findings of a job market analysis and needs
of potential employers.
(4) The extent to which the applicant will offer induction services
that reflect the latest research on effective delivery of such
services.
(e) Quality of project personnel. The Secretary considers one or
more of the following factors when determining the quality of the
personnel who will carry out the proposed project:
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and cultural competence, of the project director and the amount of time
this individual will spend directly involved in the project.
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and cultural competence, of key project personnel and the amount of
time to be spent on the project and direct interactions with
participants.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and cultural competence (as necessary), of project consultants or
subcontractors, if any.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1810-0580)
Sec. 263.7 What are the requirements for a leave of absence?
(a) A participant must submit a written request for a leave of
absence to the project director not less than 30 days prior to
withdrawal or completion of a grading period, unless an emergency
situation has occurred and the project director chooses to waive the
prior notification requirement.
(b) The project director may approve a leave of absence, for a
period not longer than twelve months, provided the participant has
completed at least twelve months of training in the project and is in
good standing at the time of request.
(c) The project director permits a leave of absence only if the
institution
[[Page 22415]]
of higher education certifies that the training participant is eligible
to resume his or her course of study at the end of the leave of
absence.
(d) A participant who is granted a leave of absence and does not
return to his or her course of study by the end of the grant project
period will be considered not to have completed the course of study for
the purpose of project performance reporting.
Sec. 263.8 What are the payback requirements?
(a) General. All participants must--
(1) Either perform work-related payback or provide cash
reimbursement to the Department for the training received. It is the
preference of the Department for participants to complete a work-
related payback;
(2) Sign an agreement, at the time of selection for training, that
sets forth the payback requirements; and
(3) Report employment verification in a manner specified by the
Department or its designee.
(b) Work-related payback. (1) Participants qualify for work-related
payback if the work they are performing is in their field of study
under the Professional Development program and benefits Indian people.
Employment in a school that has a significant Indian student population
qualifies as work that benefits Indian people.
(2) The period of time required for a work-related payback is
equivalent to the total period of time for which pre-service or in-
service training was actually received on a month-for-month basis under
the Professional Development program.
(3) Work-related payback is credited for the actual time the
participant works, not for how the participant is paid (e.g., for work
completed over 9 months but paid over 12 months, the payback credit is
9 months).
(4) For participants that initiate, but cannot complete, a work-
related payback, the payback converts to a cash payback that is
prorated based upon the amount of work-related payback completed.
(c) Cash payback. (1) Participants who do not submit employment
verification within twelve months of program exit or completion, or
have not submitted employment verification for a twelve-month period
during a work-related payback, will automatically be referred for a
cash payback unless the participant qualifies for a deferral as
described in Sec. 263.9.
(2) The cash payback required shall be equivalent to the total
amount of funds received and expended for training received under this
program and may be prorated based on any approved work-related service
the participant performs.
(3) Participants who are referred to cash payback may incur non-
refundable penalty and administrative fees in addition to their total
training costs and will incur interest charges starting the day of
referral.
(4) The cash payback obligation may only be discharged through
bankruptcy if repaying the loan would cause the participant undue
hardship as defined in 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8).
Sec. 263.9 What are the requirements for payback deferral?
(a) Education deferral. If a participant completes or exits the
Professional Development program, but plans to continue his or her
education as a full-time student without interruption, in a program
leading to a degree at an accredited institution of higher education,
the Secretary may defer the payback requirement until the participant
has completed his or her educational program.
(1) A request for a deferral must be submitted to the Secretary
within 30 days of completing or exiting the Professional Development
program and must provide the following information--
(i) The name of the accredited institution the student will be
attending;
(ii) A copy of the letter of admission from the institution;
(iii) The degree being sought; and
(iv) The projected date of completion.
(2) If the Secretary approves the deferral of the payback
requirement on the basis that a participant is continuing as a full-
time student, the participant must submit to the Secretary a status
report from an academic advisor or other authorized representative of
the institution of higher education, showing verification of enrollment
and status, after every grading period.
(b) Military deferral. If a participant exits the Professional
Development program because he or she is called or ordered to active
duty status in connection with a war, military operation, or national
emergency for more than 30 days as a member of a reserve component of
the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or as a member of the
National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10
U.S.C. 101(d)(5), the Secretary may defer the payback requirement until
the participant has completed his or her military service, for a period
not to exceed 36 months. Requests for deferral must be submitted to the
Secretary within 30 days of the earlier of receiving the call to
military service or completing or exiting the Professional Development
program, and must provide--
(1) A written statement from the participant's commanding or
personnel officer certifying--
(i) That the participant is on active duty in the Armed Forces of
the United States;
(ii) The date on which the participant's service began; and
(iii) The date on which the participant's service is expected to
end; or
(2)(i) A true certified copy of the participant's official military
orders; and
(ii) A copy of the participant's military identification.
Sec. 263.10 What are the participant payback reporting requirements?
(a) Notice of intent. Participants must submit to the Secretary,
within 30 days of completion of, or exit from, as applicable, their
training program, a notice of intent to complete a work-related or cash
payback, or to continue in a degree program as a full-time student.
(b) Work-related payback. (1) Starting within six months after exit
from or completion of the program, participants must submit to the
Secretary employment information, which includes information explaining
how the employment is related to the training received and benefits
Indian people.
(2) Participants must submit an employment status report every six
months beginning from the date the work-related service is to begin
until the payback obligation has been fulfilled.
(c) Cash payback. If a cash payback is to be made, the Department
contacts the participant to establish an appropriate schedule for
payments.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1810-0698)
Sec. 263.11 What are the grantee post-award requirements?
(a) Prior to providing funds or services to a participant, the
grantee must conduct a payback meeting with the participant to explain
the costs of training and payback responsibilities following training.
(b) The grantee must report to the Secretary all participant
training and payback information in a manner specified by the
Department or its designee.
(c)(1) Grantees must obtain a signed payback agreement from each
participant before the participant begins training. The agreement must
include--
(i) The estimated total training costs;
(ii) The estimated length of training; and
[[Page 22416]]
(iii) Information documenting that the grantee held a payback
meeting with the participant that meets the requirements of this
section.
(2) Grantees must submit a signed payback agreement to the
Department within seven days of signing the payback agreement.
(d) Grantees must conduct activities to assist participants in
identifying and securing qualifying employment opportunities following
completion of the program.
(e)(1) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are
subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That
section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee--
(i) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and
employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(ii) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic
enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of
1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in
connection with the administration of the grant.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (e), an Indian is a member of any
federally recognized Indian tribe.
(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b))
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1810-0698)
Sec. 263.12 What are the program-specific requirements for
continuation awards?
(a) In making continuation awards, in addition to applying the
criteria in 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers the extent to which
a grantee has achieved its project goals to recruit, retain, graduate,
and place in qualifying employment program participants.
(b) The Secretary may reduce continuation awards, including the
portion of awards that may be used for administrative costs, as well as
student training costs, based on a grantee's failure to achieve its
project goals specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Subpart B--Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise noted.)
Sec. 263.20 What definitions apply to the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children program?
The following definitions apply to the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children program:
Federally supported elementary or secondary school for Indian
students means an elementary or secondary school that is operated or
funded, through a contract or grant, by the Bureau of Indian Education.
Indian means an individual who is--
(1) A member of an Indian tribe or band, as membership is defined
by the Indian tribe or band, including any tribe or band terminated
since 1940, and any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the
tribe or band resides;
(2) A descendant of a parent or grandparent who meets the
requirements described in paragraph (1) of this definition;
(3) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for
any purpose;
(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or
(5) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant
under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was in effect on October
19, 1994.
Indian institution of higher education means an accredited college
or university within the United States cited in section 532 of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, any other
institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled
College or University Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo Community
College, authorized in the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of
1978.
Indian organization means an organization that--
(1) Is legally established--
(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State
or tribal law; and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of
incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of
Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is
Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction
of or by charter from the governing body of that reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the
direct control of, any institution of higher education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
Native youth community project means a project that is--
(1) Focused on a defined local geographic area;
(2) Centered on the goal of ensuring that Indian students are
prepared for college and careers;
(3) Informed by evidence, which could be either a needs assessment
conducted within the last three years or other data analysis, on--
(i) The greatest barriers, both in and out of school, to the
readiness of local Indian students for college and careers;
(ii) Opportunities in the local community to support Indian
students; and
(iii) Existing local policies, programs, practices, service
providers, and funding sources;
(4) Focused on one or more barriers or opportunities with a
community-based strategy or strategies and measurable objectives;
(5) Designed and implemented through a partnership of various
entities, which--
(i) Must include--
(A) One or more tribes or their tribal education agencies; and
(B) One or more BIE-funded schools, one or more local educational
agencies, or both; and
(ii) May include other optional entities, including community-based
organizations, national nonprofit organizations, and Alaska regional
corporations; and
(6) Led by an entity that--
(i) Is eligible for a grant under the Demonstration Grants for
Indian Children program; and
(ii) Demonstrates, or partners with an entity that demonstrates,
the capacity to improve outcomes that are relevant to the project focus
through experience with programs funded through other sources.
Professional development activities means in-service training
offered to enhance the skills and abilities of individuals that may be
part of, but not exclusively, the activities provided in a
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program.
Sec. 263.21 What priority is given to certain projects and
applicants?
(a) The Secretary gives priority to an application that presents a
plan for combining two or more of the activities described in section
7121(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended, over a period of more than one year.
(b) The Secretary gives a competitive preference priority to--
(1) An application submitted by an Indian tribe, Indian
organization, or Indian institution of higher education that is
eligible to participate in the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children
program. A group application submitted by a consortium that meets the
requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 or submitted by a
partnership is eligible to receive the preference only if the lead
applicant is an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian
institution of higher education; or
[[Page 22417]]
(2) A group application submitted by a consortium of eligible
entities that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 or
submitted by a partnership if the consortium or partnership--
(i) Includes an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian
institution of higher education; and
(ii) Is not eligible to receive the preference in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(c) The Secretary may give priority to an application that meets
any of the priorities listed in this paragraph. When inviting
applications for a competition under the Demonstration Grants program,
the Secretary designates the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice inviting
applications published in the Federal Register. The effect of each type
of priority is described in 34 CFR 75.105.
(1) Native youth community projects.
(2) Projects in which the applicant or one of its partners has
received a grant in the last four years under a federal program
selected by the Secretary and announced in a notice inviting
applications published in the Federal Register.
(3) Projects in which the applicant has Department approval to
consolidate funding through a plan that complies with section 7116 of
the ESEA or other authority designated by the Secretary.
(4) Projects that focus on a specific activity authorized in
section 7121(c) of the ESEA as designated by the Secretary in the
notice inviting applications.
(5) Projects that include either--
(i) An LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School
Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS)
program authorized under title VI, part B of the ESEA; or
(ii) A BIE-funded school that is located in an area designated with
locale code of either 42 or 43 as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7426, 7441, and 7473)
Sec. 263.22 What are the application requirements for these grants?
(a) Each application must contain--
(1) A description of how Indian tribes and parents of Indian
children have been, and will be, involved in developing and
implementing the proposed activities;
(2) Assurances that the applicant will participate, at the request
of the Secretary, in any national evaluation of this program;
(3) Information demonstrating that the proposed project is based on
scientific research, where applicable, or an existing program that has
been modified to be culturally appropriate for Indian students;
(4) A description of how the applicant will continue the proposed
activities once the grant period is over; and
(5) Other assurances and information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
(b) The Secretary may require an applicant to satisfy any of the
requirements in this paragraph. When inviting applications for a
competition under the Demonstration Grants program, the Secretary
establishes the application requirements through a notice inviting
applications published in the Federal Register. If specified in the
notice inviting applications, an applicant must submit--
(1) Evidence, which could be either a needs assessment conducted
within the last three years or other data analysis, of--
(i) The greatest barriers, both in and out of school, to the
readiness of local Indian students for college and careers;
(ii) Opportunities in the local community to support Indian
students; and
(iii) Existing local policies, programs, practices, service
providers, and funding sources.
(2) A copy of an agreement signed by the partners in the proposed
project, identifying the responsibilities of each partner in the
project. The agreement can be either--
(i) A consortium agreement that meets the requirements of 34 CFR
75.128, if each of the entities are eligible entities under this
program; or
(ii) Another form of partnership agreement, such as a memorandum of
understanding or a memorandum of agreement, if not all the partners are
eligible entities under this program.
(3) A plan, which includes measurable objectives, to evaluate
reaching the project goal or goals.
Sec. 263.23 What is the Federal requirement for Indian hiring
preference that applies to these grants?
(a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are
subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That
section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee--
(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and
employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic
enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of
1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in
connection with the administration of the grant.
(b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any
federally recognized Indian tribe.
(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b)).
[FR Doc. 2015-09396 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P