Download:
pdf |
pdfFederal 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 (http://
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 [email protected],
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
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:
[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.
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 [email protected].
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
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2015-04-22 |
| File Created | 2015-04-22 |