Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Education of Migratory Children, 64419-64423 [2019-25424]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64419-64423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25424]



[[Page 64419]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 200

[ED-2018-OESE-0079]
RIN 1810-AB49


Title I--Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; 
Education of Migratory Children

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department modifies the requirements related to the 
responsibilities of State educational agency (SEA) recipients of funds 
under title I, part C, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended (ESEA), to conduct annual prospective re-interviews to 
confirm the eligibility of children under the Migrant Education Program 
(MEP). We clarify the definition of ``independent re-interviewer'' and 
reduce the costs and burden of prospective re-interviews conducted by 
independent re-interviewers while maintaining adequate quality control 
measures to safeguard the integrity of program eligibility 
determinations.

DATES: These regulations are effective December 23, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Martinez, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E343, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 260-1334. Email: [email protected].
    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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 29, 2018, the Secretary 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this program in 
the Federal Register (83 FR 61342). In the preamble of the NPRM, we 
discussed the major changes proposed in that document to the 
requirement for SEAs to annually validate MEP eligibility 
determinations through re-interviews for a randomly selected sample of 
children identified as migratory during a single performance reporting 
period. These included the following amendments to Sec.  200.89(b):
     Clarifying for SEAs that as a quality control measure, 
individuals conducting annual prospective re-interviews must be 
individuals who did not work on the initial eligibility determination 
being reviewed.
     Replacing the reference to ``current-year'' eligibility 
determinations with the term ``current performance reporting period.'' 
A performance reporting period, sometimes referred to as a child count 
year, is a more specific time frame: September 1 through August 31, and 
thus clarifies any ambiguity associated with the phrase ``current-
year.''
     Modifying the requirement that SEAs use independent re-
interviewers for prospective re-interviews at least once every three 
years. Instead, the regulations require the use of independent re-
interviewers at least once every three years until September 1, 2020. 
After September 1, 2020, SEAs are required to use independent re-
interviewers for prospective re-interviews at least once during one of 
the first three full performance reporting periods (September 1 through 
August 31) following the effective date of a major statutory or 
regulatory change that impacts program eligibility (as determined by 
the Secretary), in order to test eligibility determinations made based 
on the changed eligibility criteria.
    Except for minor editorial revisions, there are no substantive 
differences between the NPRM and these final regulations.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, ten 
parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. We group major 
issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and 
other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that 
raised concerns not directly related to the proposed regulations.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM 
follows.

Structure of Regulations

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further consideration, we have modified the 
structure of Sec.  200.89(b)(2) from what was proposed in the NPRM. We 
think it is clearer to include all of the requirements for prospective 
re-interviewing within Sec.  200.89(b)(2), rather than to add a new 
paragraph (b)(3). This modification does not change the substance of 
the requirements as proposed, but, rather, organizes the requirements 
in such a way that minimizes the changes to the previous structure. 
This modification also eliminates the need to make an additional change 
to Sec.  200.89(d)(5), which currently refers to prospective re-
interviewing as described in paragraph (b)(2). In addition, after 
publication of the NPRM, we identified an additional change that needed 
to be made to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), for consistency throughout Sec.  
200.89(b)(2) in referring to current performance reporting period, 
instead of current year.
    Changes: Paragraph (b)(2)(i) describes the individuals who may 
conduct annual prospective re-interviews, with specific exceptions for 
years in which independent re-interviewers are required. Paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(A) contains the requirements for independent re-interviewers 
before September 1, 2020, and paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) contains the 
requirements for independent re-interviewers beginning September 1, 
2020. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) has been revised to reference the current 
performance reporting period instead of current year, consistent with 
this change in paragraph (b)(2).

Clarity of Regulations

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Background and Proposed 
Regulations sections of the preamble would be easier to understand if 
they were divided into more and shorter sections. The commenter 
indicated that the proposed regulations were clearly stated.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions for 
clarifying the preamble, and we will take these suggestions into 
consideration for future NPRMs, to the extent feasible.
    Changes: None.

Support for the Proposed Regulations

    Comment: Five commenters expressed support for the proposed 
changes. One of the five commenters specifically noted that the changes 
will result in a significant cost savings for the State's MEP.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for these 
regulations.
    Changes: None.

Criteria for Individuals Conducting Annual Prospective Re-Interviews

    Comment: One commenter asked whether individuals who provided 
consultation, guidance, or coaching to the recruiter who conducted the 
original interview would be considered to have worked on the initial 
eligibility determination being tested.
    Discussion: We consider individuals who worked on the initial 
eligibility determination being tested to be those individuals who 
conducted the initial interview used to document the child's MEP 
eligibility (e.g., the recruiter). The requirements for who may conduct 
annual prospective re-interviews do not preclude other personnel 
involved in

[[Page 64420]]

the eligibility determinations process who may have provided 
consultation, guidance, or coaching to the recruiter (e.g., 
identification and recruitment coordinators, SEA-designated Certificate 
of Eligibility reviewers) from conducting annual prospective re-
interviews. The exception to this rule is for any year in which the SEA 
uses independent re-interviewers to conduct the prospective re-
interviews. Those independent re-interviewers may not be SEA or local 
operating agency personnel working to administer or operate the MEP, 
nor any other person who worked on the initial eligibility 
determination being tested.
    Changes: None.

Sec.  200.89(b)(2)(i)(B) Prospective Re-Interviewing Following a Major 
Statutory or Regulatory Change to Child Eligibility

    Comment: One commenter identified two sentences in the preamble and 
proposed regulations that might signal to readers that, if an SEA 
elects to conduct independent re-interviews in the third performance 
reporting period following a major statutory or regulatory change, the 
sample must be drawn from eligibility determinations made during all 
three performance reporting periods following the statutory or 
regulatory change. The commenter suggested alternative wording to 
clarify that the re-interview sample would be limited to those 
eligibility determinations made during a single performance reporting 
period.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's identification of 
potentially confusing regulatory language and the suggested revisions. 
We agree with the commenter that the requirement is intended to 
validate child eligibility determinations made during one of the first 
three full performance reporting periods following a major statutory or 
regulatory change that impacts eligibility. Therefore, the sample must 
be drawn from eligibility determinations made during a single 
performance reporting period, and not from determinations made during a 
three-year span.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  200.89(b)(2)(i)(B) to clarify the 
sampling universe for independent re-interviews conducted following a 
major statutory or regulatory change.
    Comment: One commenter identified potential confusion regarding the 
changes to the requirements for independent re-interviewers. The 
commenter suggested that it may be difficult for readers to identify 
what has changed from the previous requirement to use independent re-
interviewers at least once every three years.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' identification of 
potentially confusing language. The revised regulations require the use 
of independent re-interviewers at least once every three years 
(performance reporting periods), only until September 1, 2020. 
Beginning September 1, 2020, the use of independent re-interviewers 
will only be required in the event that the Secretary determines there 
has been a significant change to eligibility requirements made by 
statute or regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that the changes to the required 
use of independent re-interviewers may be confusing and asked whether 
the change would allow for a child selected in the sample to be re-
interviewed in less than three years, potentially losing eligibility 
when eligibility criteria are changed.
    The same commenter also asked whether the changes to the 
regulations would reduce the number of individuals considered eligible 
due to the reduced frequency of interviews.
    Discussion: In response to the commenter's first question, a 
prospective re-interview considers whether the child met the 
eligibility criteria at the time the child's eligibility was determined 
(i.e., at the time the Certificate of Eligibility was completed and 
approved). Independent re-interviews taking place after a statutory or 
regulatory change would be conducted for children who were determined 
to be eligible after that change took effect. If, as a result of the 
re-interview process, the SEA determines that the initial eligibility 
determination is incorrect (i.e., the child did not meet the 
eligibility requirements at the time the determination was made), the 
SEA must stop providing MEP services to the child and remove the child 
from the database used to compile counts of eligible children. This 
corrective action, described in Sec.  200.89(b)(2)(v), is unchanged 
from the previous requirements for prospective re-interviews.
    In response to the commenter's second question, regarding the 
impact of these regulations on the number of children considered 
eligible for the MEP, we do not anticipate that the reduced frequency 
of independent re-interviews will reduce the number of children 
considered eligible for the program. SEAs must continue to conduct 
annual prospective re-interviews. The change from previous requirements 
concerns when an SEA must use independent re-interviewers to conduct 
those annual prospective re-interviews. The purpose of the annual 
prospective re-interview process is to help ensure that eligibility 
determinations are being made accurately, and to identify problems in 
order for the SEA to implement corrective actions in a timely manner. 
The SEA is not required to re-interview all currently eligible 
migratory children, nor is a re-interview required to maintain a 
child's 36 months of MEP eligibility, which begins on the child's 
qualifying arrival date.
    Changes: None.

Delegation of Responsibility for Prospective Re-Interviews

    Comment: One commenter asked several questions regarding who will 
be responsible for conducting prospective re-interviewing (e.g., school 
district staff, State staff), how independent re-interviewers will be 
selected, and whether funding will be made available to complete the 
process.
    Discussion: Because the MEP is a State-administered and -operated 
program, the SEA is responsible for all aspects of the prospective re-
interview process, which includes any delegation of responsibility and 
the process for selecting re-interviewers. In accordance with Sec.  
200.82, the SEA may set aside MEP funds for program administrative 
activities that are unique to the MEP. Therefore, the SEA may choose to 
use part of its MEP award for re-interviews. The specific amount of 
funds used, and the costs involved with re-interview efforts will vary 
by State.
    Changes: None.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined 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,

[[Page 64421]]

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. 
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as 
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs 
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The final 
regulations are not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, the 
requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
    We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only 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 these 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.
    We anticipate that the changes to these regulations will reduce the 
cost and burden associated with prospective re-interviewing, 
specifically the use of independent re-interviewers, for some SEAs. 
While we believe that SEAs will be required to conduct independent re-
interviews less frequently under the amended regulations than they are 
currently, we cannot predict when statutory changes that directly 
impact child eligibility will occur. To qualify as ``independent,'' the 
re-interviewers must be neither SEA nor local operating agency staff 
members working to administer or operate the State MEP nor any other 
persons who worked on the initial eligibility determinations being 
tested. Although there is no Federal requirement for SEAs to use a 
specific funding mechanism to support independent re-interviewers, such 
as a contract, or to use out-of-State personnel who require travel 
costs, several SEAs have chosen to use such methods and personnel for 
independent re-interviews. For those SEAs that have chosen to use more 
costly methods for independent re-interviews, we anticipate that the 
reduced frequency of independent re-interviews will result in reduced 
cost and burden. Further, we do not believe that burden will be 
affected by the clarification that annual prospective re-interviews 
must be conducted by individuals who did not work on the initial 
eligibility determination being reviewed, as this is consistent with 
the current practices of most SEAs.
    We remain committed to providing SEAs with technical assistance to 
support their efforts to maintain effective quality control over 
program eligibility determinations, which includes prospective re-
interviewing. Past support has included the Technical Assistance Guide 
on Re-interviewing published in December 2010,\1\ updated non-
regulatory guidance on program eligibility published in March 2017,\2\ 
the Identification and Recruitment Manual updated in September 2018,\3\ 
numerous presentations on program eligibility, ongoing responses to 
questions from grantees regarding program eligibility and 
identification and recruitment practices, and Title I, Part C 
Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG) funding for 13 SEAs participating in a 
five-year cohort focused on identification and recruitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, Office of Migrant Education, Technical 
Assistance Guide on Re-interviewing, Washington, DC 20202 (https://results-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/tools/mep-reinterviewing-guide-dec-10.pdf).
    \2\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, Office of Migrant Education, Non-Regulatory 
Guidance for the Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children, 
Washington, DC, 2017 (https://results-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/legislation/MEP%20Non%20Regulatory%20Guidance%20March%202017.docx).
    \3\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, Office of Migrant Education, Migrant Education 
Program Identification and Recruitment Manual, Washington, DC 20202 
(https://results.ed.gov/idr-manual).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Elsewhere in this section, under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
we identify and explain burdens specifically associated with 
information collection requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these final regulations would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Because these final regulations would affect only States and 
State agencies, the final regulations would not have an impact on small 
entities. States and State agencies are not defined as ``small 
entities'' in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These regulations contain information collection requirements that 
are

[[Page 64422]]

approved by OMB under OMB control number 1810-0662.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (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.
    Section 200.89(b) contains an information collection requirement. 
This information collection has been approved by OMB Control Number 
1810-0662. The currently approved collection includes cost and burden 
estimates for annual prospective re-interviewing that do not vary based 
on the specific personnel used for re-interviews--i.e., there is no 
distinction made between the cost and burden hours associated with 
prospective re-interviews conducted by ``independent'' re-interviewers 
compared to other re-interviewers. Although we anticipate that 
``independent'' re-interviewers will be used less frequently under the 
revised regulations than they are currently, SEAs are still required to 
conduct prospective re-interviews on an annual basis under the revised 
regulations, so our cost and burden estimates for this information 
collection are unchanged from the currently approved information 
collection.
    We estimate a standard number of hours to conduct re-interviews--
including multiple attempts to locate the family and travel to their 
location (2 hours/child), analyze the findings (1 hour/child), and 
summarize findings for annual reporting (2 hours/SEA). We estimate 
costs based on a standard hourly rate for staff conducting re-
interviews ($10/hour) and a higher standard hourly rate for staff 
responsible for analysis and reporting ($25/hour).
    Some SEAs have elected to use more costly resources and methods 
when conducting independent re-interviews, such as contracts with 
private organizations and out-of-State personnel. Since these are not 
Federal requirements, under the PRA, any increased costs associated 
with these resources and methods were not factored into the cost and 
burden estimates in the currently approved collection, and, 
accordingly, any decreased costs associated with these resources and 
methods that would result from their less frequent use under the final 
regulations also do not affect the cost and burden estimates. Thus, the 
burden estimated in the approved information collection remains 
unchanged.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is 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 this program.

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.
    In the NPRM we identified a specific section that may have 
federalism implications and encouraged State and local elected 
officials to review and provide comments on the proposed regulations. 
In the Public Comment section of this preamble, we discuss any comments 
we received on this subject.
    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. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format 
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 
available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
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 number 
84.011: Education of Migratory Children)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200

    Education of disadvantaged, Elementary and secondary education, 
Grant programs--education, Indians--education, Infants and children, 
Juvenile delinquency, Migrant labor, Private schools, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 19, 2019.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends 
part 200 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200--TITLE I--IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE 
DISADVANTAGED

0
1. The authority citation for part 200 is revised to read as follows:

     Authority:  20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6576, unless otherwise 
noted.
    Section 200.1 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1).
    Section 200.11 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6311(c)(2), 
(g)(2)(D), (h)(1)(C)(xii), (h)(2)(C), 6312(c)(3), 9622(d)(1).
    Section 200.25 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6314.
    Section 200.26 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6314.
    Section 200.29 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(D), 
6311(g)(2)(E), 6314, 6396(b)(4), 7425(c), 7703(d).
    Section 200.61 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6312(e).
    Section 200.62 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(a).
    Section 200.63 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(b).
    Section 200.64 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320.
    Section 200.65 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(a)(1)(B).
    Section 200.68 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6320(a)(3)(B).
    Section 200.73 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6332(c), 6336(f)(3), 
7221e(c).
    Section 200.77 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6313(c)(3)-(5), 
6318(a)(3), 6320; 42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)-(iii), 11433(b)(1).
    Section 200.78 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)(B), (c), 
6333(c)(2).
    Section 200.79 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)(D), 
(c)(2)(B), 6321(d).
    Section 200.81 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6391-6399.
    Section 200.83 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6396.
    Section 200.85 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6398.
    Section 200.87 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7881(b)(1)(A).
    Section 200.88 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6321(d).

[[Page 64423]]

    Section 200.89 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6391-6399, 6571, 18 
U.S.C. 1001.
    Section 200.90 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6432, 6454, 6472.
    Section 200.100 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6303, 6303b, 6304.
    Section 200.103 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 6315(c)(1)(A)(ii), 
6571(a), 8101(4).

0
 2. Section 200.89 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) introductory text and (b)(2)(i) and (ii).
0
b. Removing the parenthetical authority citation at the end of the 
section.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  200.89  Re-interviewing; eligibility documentation; and quality 
control.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Prospective re-interviewing. As part of the system of quality 
controls identified in paragraph (d) of this section, an SEA that 
receives MEP funds must annually validate child eligibility 
determinations from the current performance reporting period (September 
1 to August 31) through re-interviews for a randomly selected sample of 
children identified as migratory during the same performance reporting 
period. In conducting these re-interviews, an SEA must--
    (i) Except as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section, use one or more re-interviewers who may be SEA or local 
operating agency staff members working to administer or operate the 
State MEP, or any other person trained to conduct personal interviews 
and to understand and apply program eligibility requirements, but who 
did not work on the initial eligibility determinations being tested;
    (A) At least once every three years until September 1, 2020, SEAs 
must use one or more independent re-interviewers (i.e., interviewers 
who are neither SEA nor local operating agency staff members working to 
administer or operate the State MEP nor any other persons who worked on 
the initial eligibility determinations being tested and who are trained 
to conduct personal interviews and to understand and apply program 
eligibility requirements).
    (B) Beginning September 1, 2020, an SEA must use one or more 
independent re-interviewers to validate child eligibility 
determinations made during one of the first three full performance 
reporting periods (September 1 through August 31) following the 
effective date of a major statutory or regulatory change that directly 
impacts child eligibility (as determined by the Secretary). Therefore, 
the entire sample of eligibility determinations to be tested by 
independent re-interviewers must be drawn from children determined to 
be eligible in a single performance period, based on eligibility 
requirements that include the major statutory or regulatory change.
    (ii) Select a random sample of identified migratory children so 
that a sufficient number of eligibility determinations in the current 
performance reporting period are tested on a statewide basis or within 
categories associated with identified risk factors (e.g., experience of 
recruiters, size or growth in local migratory child population, 
effectiveness of local quality control procedures) in order to help 
identify possible problems with the State's child eligibility 
determinations;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-25424 Filed 11-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P