Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 232 December 3, 2014 

Part IV 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Part 263 

Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development 

Program and Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Program; Proposed 

Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 263 

RIN 1810–AB19 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0050] 

Indian Education Discretionary Grant 

Programs; Professional Development 

Program and Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to 

revise 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 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). The proposed regulations 

would 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 would enhance the 

project design and quality of services to 

better 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, 

we propose new priorities, including 

one for native youth community 

projects, and application requirements. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before January 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

If you are submitting comments 

electronically, we strongly encourage 

you to submit any comments or 

attachments in Microsoft Word format. 

If you must submit a comment in Adobe 

Portable Document format (PDF), we 

strongly encourage you to convert the 

PDF to print-to-PDF format or to use 

some other commonly used searchable 

text format. Please do not submit the 

PDF in a scanned format. Using printto-PDF format allows the Department to 

electronically search and copy certain 

portions of your submissions. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to: John 

Cheek, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

3W207, Washington, DC 20202–6135. 

Telephone: (202) 401–0274. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cheek, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

3W207, Washington, DC 20202–6135. 

Telephone: (202)401–0274 or by email: 

john.cheek@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding these 

proposed regulations. To ensure that 

your comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final regulations, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

section or sections of the proposed 

regulations that each of your comments 

addresses and to arrange your comments 

in the same order as the proposed 

regulations. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

regulations. Please let us know of any 

further ways we could reduce potential 

costs or increase potential benefits 

while preserving the effective and 

efficient administration of the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these proposed regulations by 

accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 

inspect the comments in person in room 

3W207, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 

Monday through Friday of each week 

except Federal holidays. Please contact 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed regulations. If 

you want to schedule an appointment 

for this type of accommodation or 

auxiliary aid, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Background 

The Secretary proposes to revise the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 263 that 

govern the Professional Development 

program and Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children program. For the 

Professional Development program, we 

propose adding grantee post-award 

requirements and revising the selection 

criteria to better enable the Department 

and grantees to meet the objectives of 

the program. For the Demonstration 

Grants program, we propose new 

priorities, including one for native 

youth community projects. For both the 

Professional Development and 

Demonstration Grants programs, we 

propose to amend certain definitions 

and reorganize sections of the 

regulations to give the Department more 

flexibility in determining which 

priorities and selection criteria to use 

each year of a competition. 

Through our work with grantees 

under the Professional Development 

program and our monitoring of their 

participant recruitment, retention, 

graduation, and job placement rates, it 

became apparent that the projects being 

selected for grant awards were not 

adequately addressing the issues faced 

by Indian individuals seeking to become 

teachers and administrators. These 

issues include high teacher and 

administrator turnover rates; lack of 

cultural relevancy of teacher training 

programs; and difficulty in finding 

qualified employment. As a result, 

many Indian students participating in 

the Professional Development program 

either do not complete their course of 

study or cannot obtain employment 

upon graduation, and therefore have to 

repay the assistance they received in 

cash rather than through a work-related 

payback. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71931 

The proposed regulations would 

encourage Professional Development 

program applicants to better tailor their 

programs to meet the needs of the 

Indian students participating in the 

program. The proposed regulations also 

would encourage Professional 

Development program applicants to 

have stronger plans for placing 

participants in qualifying employment 

upon completion of the program and in 

supporting participants in their first 

year on the job. The proposed changes 

are designed to result in more 

participants successfully completing 

their program of study and obtaining 

employment as teachers and 

administrators. The proposed changes 

should result in fewer participants who, 

after receiving assistance under these 

grants, do not complete a ‘‘work 

payback’’ and instead must repay the 

Department in cash for the training 

received because they are not employed 

as teachers or administrators. 

For the Demonstration Grants 

program, the proposed changes would 

add new priorities that we could use in 

any year of a new competition. These 

new priorities would provide more 

flexibility to tribal communities in 

designing coordinated projects to help 

students become college- and careerready. By college- and career-ready, we 

mean that a student graduating from 

high school has the knowledge and 

skills to succeed in his or her chosen 

post-secondary path, including 

continued education, work, or a 

traditional lifestyle. A rigorous and 

well-rounded high school education 

will provide rewards for a graduate no 

matter his or her pursuit. 

As in all communities, for native 

students to succeed, they must have a 

quality school to attend and be 

surrounded by community and school 

conditions that support learning. Low 

educational outcomes can be 

exacerbated by factors outside of school 

such as poor health, food insecurity, or 

unstable housing. Given the 

interconnectedness of in-school and 

out-of-school factors, the Federal 

government proposes to support 

communities that will assess the set of 

issues they face in ensuring their 

students are college- and career-ready, 

and respond with interconnected, 

coordinated solutions. The purpose of 

these proposed priorities is to encourage 

a community-wide approach to 

providing academic, social, and other 

support services, such as health 

services, for students and students’ 

family members that will result in 

improved educational outcomes for all 

children, and specifically college- and 

career-readiness. 

Tribal Consultation: Before 

developing these proposed regulations, 

the Department held two nationally 

accessible consultation events on 

January 28, 2014 and February 5, 2014, 

pursuant to Executive Order 13175 

(‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’), to solicit 

tribal input on the Professional 

Development program broadly, and on 

the definition of ‘‘Indian organization’’ 

for the Demonstration Grants program. 

A link to the transcripts for these 

consultations is available at: http://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/

oie/index.html. 

Additionally, the Department sent 

several email messages to tribal leaders 

from each of the 566 federally 

recognized Indian tribes to solicit input, 

via a blog, on the future direction of the 

Professional Development program. The 

topics on which we sought input 

included program participants’ job 

placement, recruitment, and retention; 

induction services for program 

participants; costs of training programs; 

the definition of ‘‘Indian organization’’; 

and the subject areas, geographic areas, 

and specialty areas in which educators 

are most needed. A link to the blog 

posting can be found at: www.ed.gov/

edblogs/oese/2014/03/indianprofessional-development-program-fortribal-consultation/. 

While the Department received 

limited feedback from its consultation 

efforts regarding the Professional 

Development program, respondents 

were generally in favor of the 

Department placing a greater emphasis 

on applicants’ plans for recruitment and 

retention of qualified participants; 

requiring job placement assistance for 

graduates; and improving induction 

services during the first year of 

employment. In addition, while reaction 

was mixed as to whether we should 

expand the definition of ‘‘Indian 

organization,’’ most of the commenters 

were in favor of the broader definition. 

The Department then conducted 

additional consultations regarding 

proposed new priorities for the 

Demonstration Grants program, 

including a priority for native youth 

community projects. These 

consultations were held in-person on 

October 17, 2014 (Alaska) and October 

29, 2014 (Georgia), and via webinars on 

October 21 and 24, 2014. Tribal leaders 

were generally positive about the 

concept of native youth community 

projects. A link to the transcripts for 

these consultations is available at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/

oese/oie/index.html. Many participants 

expressed support for allowing grantees 

the flexibility to identify communityspecific barriers and opportunities, 

rather than being required to address 

specific issues or grade spans. In 

addition, participants appreciated the 

ability to focus attention on one or more 

opportunities, barriers, and strategies, 

through this proposal, especially if 

Federal grant resources are limited in a 

given year. Participants highlighted the 

need for guidance and technical 

assistance in developing strategies and 

objectives, as well as access to evidencebased and promising practices. 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

We discuss substantive issues under 

the sections of the proposed regulations 

to which they pertain. Generally, we do 

not address proposed regulatory 

changes that are technical or otherwise 

minor in effect. 

Subpart A—Professional Development 

Program 

Section 263.3 What definitions apply 

to the Professional Development 

program? 

Statute: Under section 7122 of the 

ESEA, an ‘‘Indian organization,’’ in a 

consortium with an institution of higher 

education, is eligible to receive a grant 

under the Professional Development 

program. However, title VII of the ESEA 

does not define this term. Similarly, 

section 7122 states that funds under this 

program must be used for training, 

either in-service or pre-service, of 

Indian individuals to go into the field of 

education, but it does not define the 

terms ‘‘expenses,’’ ‘‘induction services,’’ 

‘‘professional development activities,’’ 

’’stipend,’’ or ‘‘undergraduate degree.’’ 

The Secretary has the authority to 

regulate the definitions that apply to the 

Professional Development program 

under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474. 

Current Regulations: Section 263.3 of 

the current regulations defines key 

terms used by the Department in 

administering the program. Current 

definitions include, among other terms, 

‘‘expenses,’’ ‘‘Indian organization,’’ 

‘‘induction services,’’ ‘‘professional 

development activities,’’ ‘‘stipend,’’ and 

‘‘undergraduate degree.’’ Under the 

current regulations: 

• ‘‘Expenses’’ is defined as costs 

incurred by a participant during 

training, such as tuition, books, fees, 

room and board, and supplies. 

• ‘‘Indian organization’’ is limited to 

an organization that, in addition to 

meeting other criteria, has as its primary 

purpose the promotion of the education 

of Indians. 

• ‘‘Induction services’’ are defined as 

services meeting certain criteria that 

grantees provide to program participants 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

after they complete their training, 

including such activities as mentoring, 

access to research on teaching and 

learning, feedback on performance, and 

periodic meetings between participants. 

• ‘‘Professional development 

activities’’ are defined as in-service 

training that focuses on enhancing skills 

of participants that are already 

employed. 

• ‘‘Stipend’’ is defined as funds 

provided to participants to cover living 

expenses such as room and board. 

• ‘‘Undergraduate degree’’ is defined 

as a bachelor’s degree awarded by an 

institution of higher education. 

Proposed Regulations: First, we 

propose to remove the definition of 

‘‘expenses.’’ Next, we propose to modify 

the definition of ‘‘Indian organization’’ 

to include an organization that has as 

one of its purposes the education of 

Indian students. We also propose to 

revise the definition of ‘‘induction 

services’’ to state that they are provided 

during the participant’s first year of 

teaching to improve participants’ 

performance and promote their 

retention. Also, the proposed revisions 

state that induction services must 

include services assisting teachers to 

use technology and data as part of their 

instruction. Additionally, the proposed 

revisions clarify that the mentoring and 

coaching services must be of high 

quality and that the feedback provided 

to participants must be clear, timely, 

and useful. Another proposed change is 

to expand the definition of 

‘‘professional development activities’’ to 

include pre-service training, in addition 

to in-service training, which is included 

in the current definition. Additionally, 

we propose to change the definition of 

‘‘stipend’’ to limit this term to only 

funds used for room, board, and 

personal living expenses for full-time 

students living at or near the institution 

providing the training. The last 

proposed change is the elimination of 

the definition of ‘‘undergraduate 

degree.’’ 

Reasons: First, we propose removing 

the definition of ‘‘expenses’’ because we 

propose to explain in detail in § 263.4 

what types of student costs are 

allowable. 

Second, we propose to change the 

definition of ‘‘Indian organization’’ to 

include organizations that have as one 

of their primary purposes the promotion 

of the education of Indians, in order to 

expand the pool of eligible applicants. 

The current regulatory definition 

excludes from eligibility Indian 

organizations that have multiple areas of 

expertise (e.g., Indian housing or health 

services in addition to education) and 

we believe this unnecessarily limits the 

pool of eligible applicants. Because 

these organizations have the knowledge 

necessary to carry out successful 

projects under the Professional 

Development program, the Department 

wants these entities, in consortia with 

institutions of higher education, to be 

eligible to apply for these grants. 

We propose to amend the definition 

of ‘‘induction services’’ to more 

specifically describe the induction 

services that grantees would provide 

graduates upon completion of their preservice training and to better align this 

definition with similar definitions in 

other Department programs, such as the 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grant 

Program. These changes would ensure 

that graduates receive useful and 

productive support in their schools 

during the crucial first year of teaching, 

and specifically that they receive 

training on effective use of technology 

and data in the classroom. Grantees 

either can provide induction services 

directly or use grant funds, as specified 

in proposed § 263.4(c), to sponsor 

mentorships at the school or schooldistrict level. We expect these induction 

services to increase the likelihood that 

new teachers and administrators remain 

in the professional fields for which they 

received training and to increase their 

effectiveness. 

We also propose to expand the 

definition of ‘‘professional development 

activities’’ to include pre-service 

activities to provide maximum 

flexibility to grantees in creating 

learning opportunities that will prepare 

participants to overcome some of the 

barriers they may encounter as teachers 

and administrators. 

We also plan to limit the definition of 

‘‘stipend’’ to only room, board, and 

personal living expenses for full-time 

students who are living at or near the 

institution where they are receiving 

training, to eliminate the practice of 

participants receiving stipends from two 

professional development grants 

concurrently. 

Lastly, we propose to remove the 

definition of ‘‘undergraduate degree’’ 

because this term is not used in the 

regulations or guidance for the 

Professional Development program. The 

program now uses the terms ‘‘bachelor’s 

degree’’ or ‘‘baccalaureate degree,’’ and 

we do not believe these terms require 

definition. 

Section 263.4 What training costs may 

a Professional Development program 

include? 

Statute: Section 7122 of the ESEA 

states that grant funds under the 

Professional Development program may 

be used to provide support and training 

for program participants, including 

continuing programs, workshops, 

conferences, and direct financial 

support. 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations explain the training costs 

that may be covered under the 

Professional Development program. The 

regulations state that training costs may 

include costs to fully finance a student’s 

educational expenses and supplement 

other financial aid including stipends. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

revise the regulations to provide greater 

detail about the kinds of training costs 

that may be covered under the 

Professional Development program, 

including in-service and pre-service 

training. We propose to include 

examples of costs that contribute to the 

full cost of a participant’s education, 

such as technology costs. Additionally, 

in 263.4(c), we propose to revise the 

regulations to specify other kinds of 

costs that can be covered under the 

Professional Development program, 

including costs associated with 

collaborating with prospective 

employers, providing in-service training 

such as mentorships for participants 

who have graduated, and assisting 

participants in finding employment. 

These are costs that cannot be passed on 

to the participants. 

Reasons: The inclusion of examples of 

costs to fully finance a participant’s 

education would help grantees and 

participants understand what education 

costs can be covered by the program. 

This would result in uniform treatment 

of allowable educational expenses 

among grantees and reduce the risk that 

grantees would use program funds for 

unallowable expenses or incorrectly 

charge participants for costs that should 

be covered by grant administration 

funds. 

The inclusion of grantee costs beyond 

educational expenses in this section of 

the regulations would encourage 

grantees to include costs associated with 

creating partnerships with prospective 

employers, providing in-service training 

such as mentorships for graduated 

participants, and assisting participants 

in finding employment in their field of 

study. This would improve the quality 

of the job placement and in-service 

supports provided to participants. 

Specifically, these changes would help 

increase the pool of available jobs for 

graduates; assist new teachers and 

administrators with overcoming 

workplace challenges they encounter 

within the first year of employment; and 

increase the number of program 

participants finding employment upon 

graduation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71933 

Section 263.5 What priority is given to 

certain projects and applicants? 

Statute: Section 7143 of the ESEA 

states that the Secretary shall give 

preference to Indian tribes, Indian 

organizations, and Indian institutions of 

higher education applying for grants 

under the Professional Development 

program. Section 7122 of the ESEA does 

not establish any other priorities for this 

program, but it states that funds under 

this program must be used to provide 

pre-service or in-service training for 

Indian individuals to become teachers, 

administrators, and other education 

professionals. 

Current Regulations: Section 263.5 

establishes two different competitive 

preference priorities—one for 

applications submitted by an Indian 

tribe, Indian organization, or an Indian 

institution of higher education, and one 

for consortium applications that 

designate a tribal college or university 

as a fiscal agent—and assigns five points 

to each of these priorities. In addition, 

the current regulations establish as 

absolute priorities applications for preservice training of teachers and 

administrators. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

combine the two competitive preference 

priorities in § 263.5(a) and (b) into one 

competitive preference priority. Instead 

of setting the number of competitive 

points at five, as the current regulations 

do, we propose to determine the number 

of points awarded for this combined 

competitive preference priority 

annually. In other words, we will 

determine the number of competitive 

points to be awarded in each year of a 

new competition for the program. For 

the remaining current priorities, we 

propose to designate these priorities as 

absolute, competitive preference, or 

invitational in the notice inviting 

applications. 

We also propose to amend the current 

priorities for pre-service training for 

teachers and administrators to require 

that applicants under these priorities 

include project-specific goals for the 

number of participants to be recruited, 

to continue each year, to graduate, and 

to find jobs upon completion. 

Finally, we propose a new priority for 

applicants that submit a letter of 

support from a local educational agency 

(LEA), Bureau of Indian Educationfunded school, or other entity in the 

applicant’s service area agreeing to 

consider program graduates for 

qualifying employment. We also 

propose removing the note to paragraph 

263.5(c)(1) regarding participants who 

need a fifth year of study to complete 

licensure requirements and 

incorporating that language into 

paragraph 263.5(b)(i)(A). We believe this 

change will make it clearer that certain 

individuals may participate in the 

Professional Development program even 

after the end of the grant period. 

Reasons: The removal of points 

associated with the competitive 

preference priority for applications 

submitted by certain Indian entities and 

the removal of the designation of the 

remaining priorities as absolute or 

competitive preference would provide 

the Secretary with flexibility to 

determine the priority structure and 

priority point allocation for each grant 

competition. We propose to combine the 

current competitive preference priorities 

in § 263.5(a) and (b) into a single 

priority to streamline the application 

process. The current priorities ask 

applicants for similar commitments, and 

the Department has observed that 

applicants that meet one of these 

competitive preference priorities almost 

always also meet the other. By 

combining these priorities into a single 

priority, applicants would no longer 

receive points twice for the same 

commitment. 

We believe that requiring grantees to 

establish project goals for participant 

recruitment, retention, graduation, and 

job placement as part of the pre-service 

training priority would make grantees 

more accountable for setting and 

reaching goals in these areas. 

We propose adding the priority 

regarding the letter of support from 

potential employers to improve the 

relationships between grantees and 

potential employers from the beginning 

of the grant period. This priority is 

expected to help increase the number of 

participants that obtain employment 

upon graduation from the program and 

complete a work-related payback 

because the Department has learned that 

grantees that develop a close working 

relationship with school districts and 

other potential employers have been 

more successful placing participants 

into eligible employment after 

graduation. 

Section 263.6 How does the Secretary 

evaluate applications for the 

Professional Development program? 

Statute: Under section 7142 of the 

ESEA, the Secretary uses a peer review 

process to review applications 

submitted for the Professional 

Development program. Title VII of the 

ESEA does not address the criteria that 

should be used to evaluate these 

applications, and under 20 U.S.C. 

1221e–3 and 3474 the Secretary has the 

authority to establish these selection 

criteria through regulations. 

Current Regulations: Under the 

current regulations, the Secretary 

awards a fixed number of points for 

each of the selection criteria used for 

evaluating grant applications. The 

current criteria are the: 

• Need for the project (5 points); 

• Significance of the project (10 

points); 

• Quality of project design (15 

points); 

• Quality of project services to be 

provided (15 points); 

• Quality of project personnel (15 

points); 

• Adequacy of resources to 

accomplish project goals (10 points); 

• Quality of the management plan (15 

points); and 

• Quality of the project evaluation (15 

points). 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

remove the fixed points assigned to each 

criterion. Instead, the Secretary would 

establish the number of points for each 

selection criterion annually, that is, for 

each year of a new competition for the 

program, in the notice inviting 

applications for the competition. The 

Secretary could also include any of the 

selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 

and select from among the list of factors 

under each criterion in 34 CFR 75.210 

or these regulations when making new 

grant awards. 

We propose to include in the 

regulations only program-specific 

factors and to eliminate the factors that 

are codified in 34 CFR 75.210, as well 

as entire selection criteria for which we 

do not propose program-specific factors. 

To that end, we propose to remove the 

selection criteria for ‘‘adequacy of 

resources,’’ ‘‘quality of the management 

plan,’’ and ‘‘quality of the project 

evaluation.’’ 

In § 263.6(a) we propose to revise the 

‘‘need for project’’ selection criterion to 

address how the proposed project will 

prepare participants to work in a field 

of study where there are demonstrated 

shortages, and the extent to which 

employment opportunities exist in the 

project’s service area. Both the shortages 

and the employment opportunities 

would be demonstrated through a job 

market analysis. 

We also propose to revise the 

‘‘significance’’ selection criterion in 

§ 263.6(b) to address how the proposed 

project would help increase effective 

strategies for teaching and improving 

Indian student achievement, and would 

build local capacity to provide, 

improve, or expand services that 

address the specific needs of Indian 

students. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71934 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

In § 263.6(c) we propose to add the 

following factors within the ‘‘quality of 

project design’’ selection criterion: 

• The extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are ambitious, 

attainable, and address specific project 

performance goals; 

• The extent to which the applicant 

designed a recruitment plan that 

ensures that participants are likely to 

complete the program; and 

• The extent to which the proposed 

project will incorporate the needs of the 

potential employers by establishing 

partnerships and developing programs 

that meet their employment needs. 

We propose to add four new projectspecific factors to the selection criterion 

for ‘‘quality of project services’’ in 

§ 263.6(d). These proposed factors are 

designed to identify applicants that 

would: 

• Provide learning experiences to 

help participants become successful 

teachers or administrators; 

• Prepare participants to adapt 

practice to meet the breadth of Indian 

student needs; 

• Offer job placement activities; and 

• Offer induction services that reflect 

the latest research. 

For the selection criterion ‘‘Quality of 

project personnel,’’ we propose 

amending the factors to include 

consideration of the cultural 

competence of proposed key project 

personnel. 

Reasons: We propose these changes to 

make the selection criteria for the 

Professional Development program 

more focused on the goals of the 

program—to train qualified Indian 

individuals to be teachers and 

administrators and to increase the 

number of such individuals in 

education professions serving Indian 

people. Through its work with grantees, 

the Department has learned that the 

projects that best reach these goals are 

ones that recruit qualified participants 

and have supports in place to help them 

complete their training successfully, 

have high-quality plans to place 

graduates in jobs upon their graduation, 

and provide transition supports to 

graduates as they begin their careers. 

Specifically, the proposed 

amendments to the ‘‘need for project’’ 

selection criterion would encourage 

applicants to demonstrate that their 

proposed training relates to a field with 

a demonstrated shortage of teachers and 

administrators in their geographic area, 

which would increase the likelihood of 

participant job placement after 

graduation. The proposed amendments 

to the ‘‘significance’’ selection criterion 

would encourage applicants to 

demonstrate that the project would 

significantly improve the effectiveness 

of training given to Indian teachers and 

would develop strategies for improving 

the resulting outcomes for Indian 

students in ways that can be replicated. 

The proposed amendments to the 

‘‘quality of project design’’ selection 

criterion would encourage applicants to 

have specific plans for recruiting 

qualified applicants and for creating 

partnerships with potential employers, 

and to set ambitious goals that would 

measure success related to these plans. 

The proposed amendments to the 

‘‘quality of project services’’ selection 

criterion are designed to encourage 

applicants to have plans to place 

participants in jobs and to provide 

participants with supports during the 

beginning of their careers. Lastly, the 

proposed amendments to the ‘‘quality of 

project personnel’’ selection criterion 

aim to ensure that the project team 

would have competency regarding 

cultural challenges facing project 

participants, and the skills to address 

differences in learning styles of Indian 

students. 

Additionally, we propose removing 

the fixed selection criteria points to 

provide flexibility to determine the 

point allocation for each grant 

competition. This would allow us to 

tailor grant competitions to changing 

student learning needs and employment 

opportunities in the field. 

Finally, we propose removing the 

selection criteria that are identical to the 

selection criteria codified in section 34 

CFR 75.210 because, under 34 CFR 

75.200, the Secretary has the ability to 

use these criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 for 

the Department’s discretionary grant 

programs. 

Section 263.7 What are the 

requirements for a leave of absence? 

Statute: Section 7122 of the ESEA 

does not address how the Department or 

grantees should handle situations in 

which participants take a leave of 

absence from the course of study. The 

Secretary has the authority to regulate 

this issue under 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 

3474. 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations allow participants to be 

granted a leave of absence for up to one 

academic year as long as the participant 

receives approval from the project 

director, but the regulations do not 

specify how to handle these situations 

for the purpose of project performance 

reporting. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose 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. This change is 

proposed to address situations where 

participants do not return after taking a 

leave of absence. 

Reasons: We propose to add the 

provision regarding participants who do 

not return to the program after a leave 

of absence because the current 

regulations do not address how such 

participants are treated for reporting 

purposes. Currently, grantees generally 

are not reporting the final status of 

participants who never return from a 

leave of absence. The proposed change 

would ensure that grantees track 

participant progress through the 

program more accurately, and it would 

allow the Department to track grantee 

progress toward meeting goals for 

participant completion. 

Section 263.8 What are the payback 

requirements? 

Statute: Section 7122 of the ESEA 

requires individuals who receive 

training under the Professional 

Development program to either perform 

work-related payback or to repay all or 

a prorated part of the assistance they 

received under the program. This 

section also requires the Secretary to 

establish regulations to govern this 

procedure. 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations in § 263.8 require 

participants to sign a payback agreement 

when selected to be in the Professional 

Development program, perform work 

related to training received, and repay 

all or a prorated amount of the 

assistance received if work-related 

payback is not completed. For cash 

payback, the regulations state that the 

cash payback is equal to the total 

amount of assistance received. 

Additionally, the current regulations in 

§ 263.9 (‘‘When does payback begin?’’) 

and § 263.10 (‘‘What are the payback 

reporting requirements?’’) address other 

aspects of the payback requirements. 

Section 263.9 explains that payback 

begins within six months of training 

completion, and § 263.10 states that if a 

participant cannot complete a workrelated payback, he or she must 

complete a cash payback. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

consolidate all of the regulatory 

provisions that govern the payback 

process, currently in § 263.8 through 

§ 263.10, into § 263.8. First, we propose 

to outline the general payback 

requirements. We would clarify the two 

different types of payback to the 

Department, work-related payback and 

cash payback, and to specify that the 

preference is for participants to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71935 

complete a work-related payback. We 

would also note the payback agreement 

and employer verification requirements, 

which we discuss in more detail in 

§ 263.10 and § 263.11. With respect to 

the payback process, we propose that 

work-related payback would be tracked 

and credited on a month-for-month 

basis, that it would be credited based on 

actual time worked, and that if a 

participant is unable to complete a 

work-related payback he or she would 

be required to make a cash payback on 

a prorated basis. For cash payback, we 

propose that participants who do not 

report eligible employment within 

twelve months would be automatically 

referred for a cash payback, would be 

responsible to repay the total amount of 

funds received, and would incur nonrefundable fees and interest charges 

from the date of referral. The regulations 

would also clarify that cash payback can 

only be discharged through bankruptcy 

if repaying the loan would cause undue 

hardship as defined under bankruptcy 

law. 

Reasons: The Department proposes to 

clarify the regulations that govern the 

payback process so that participants 

better understand the repayment 

requirement. In the current regulations, 

much of the information regarding work 

and cash payback appears in § 263.9 and 

§ 263.10, and we believe this is 

confusing for participants. The 

proposed regulations better organize the 

information about work and cash 

payback requirements and provide more 

clarity to grantees and participants 

regarding the requirements for each. 

For cash payback, we also propose to 

add provisions that would better inform 

participants of the nature of the debt 

they are incurring when they begin their 

course of study. To align the regulations 

with our current practice, we propose 

the provision regarding non-refundable 

fees and interest charges to notify 

participants that they will incur these 

fees in addition to their training costs if 

they are referred for a cash payback. 

Similarly, we propose to specify how 

loans will be treated in bankruptcy so 

that participants would be aware that it 

may not be possible to discharge these 

loans through bankruptcy. 

We also propose to amend the 

regulations to clarify the date by which 

the two different types of payback must 

begin. The current regulations state that 

work-related payback begins within six 

months of completion of the training 

program but do not state when cash 

payback would begin. We propose to 

clarify that, for participants who have 

not previously reported eligible 

employment, cash payback would begin 

within twelve months of completion of 

training, or, for participants who have 

entered but not completed work-related 

payback, cash payback would begin 

when participants have failed to submit 

verification of eligible employment for a 

twelve-month period. We believe these 

changes would reduce the confusion of 

many participants regarding when 

work-related payback would begin and 

when a participant would be referred for 

a cash payback. 

Additionally, we expect these 

proposed changes would reduce the 

number of participants completing a 

cash payback because many participants 

do not currently submit the required 

employment verification documentation 

because they do not understand their 

responsibilities under the current 

regulations. 

Section 263.9 What are the 

requirements for payback deferral? 

Statute: Section 7122 of the ESEA 

requires individuals who receive 

training under the Professional 

Development program to either perform 

work-related payback or to repay all or 

a prorated part of the assistance they 

received under the program. This 

section also requires the Secretary to 

establish regulations to govern this 

procedure. 

Current Regulations: Section 263.9 is 

currently titled, ‘‘When does payback 

begin?’’ and states that payback begins 

within six months of program 

completion. Additionally, § 263.9 

allows participants who leave the 

Professional Development program but 

continue their education as full-time 

students to defer the payback of 

assistance. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

rename this section of the regulations 

‘‘What are the requirements for payback 

deferral?’’ and to specify the two types 

of deferral that are available: Education 

and military service. Current regulations 

specify the conditions under which 

education deferrals can be granted, but 

they do not explain the deferrals of 

payback for military service. 

We also propose to add a provision 

for deferrals, for no more than 36 

months, for individuals called to active 

duty in the armed services for more than 

30 days. We propose to add regulations 

to establish the criteria for a ‘‘military 

deferral’’ and the process to request a 

‘‘military deferral.’’ As part of the 

request process, we propose that a 

participant provide to the Secretary a 

written statement from the recipient’s 

commanding officer or a copy of his or 

her military orders and military 

identification. 

In addition, we propose to remove the 

provision stating that payback begins 

within six months of program 

completion, as we propose to revise 

§ 263.8 to provide that participants 

would be referred for cash payback if 

they do not submit employment 

verification within twelve months of 

completion of pre-service or in-service 

training or for any twelve-month period 

prior to work-related payback 

completion. 

Reasons: We propose changing the 

title of this section to better reflect the 

information included in this regulation 

and to clarify the two situations in 

which the Department will grant 

deferrals. We believe the proposed 

changes would eliminate the confusion 

regarding what types of payback 

deferrals are available to participants 

who receive funding from the 

Professional Development program. The 

program has always permitted deferrals 

for participants who continued their 

education full-time and for military 

deployment, and the proposed 

regulations would clarify and specify 

the rules for each type of deferment. The 

military deferment provisions are 

modeled after those used in the 

Department’s TEACH Grant program 

(see 34 CFR part 686) and would allow 

participants serving in specified reserve 

components of military units to defer 

their payback obligations if they are 

called to active military service. 

Section 263.10 What are the 

participant payback reporting 

requirements? 

Statute: Section 7122 of the ESEA 

requires individuals who receive 

training under the Professional 

Development program to report 

periodically on their status in workrelated payback. This section also 

requires the Secretary to establish 

regulations to govern this procedure. 

Current Regulations: Section 263.10 

requires participants to submit written 

notice of intent to complete a workrelated payback within 30 days of 

completing the program, develop a plan 

to demonstrate how their proposed 

work-related service is related to the 

training and how it benefits Indian 

people, notify the Secretary within 30 

days of any change in employment once 

employment has begun, and submit 

employment verification every six 

months that includes a certification that 

the work was continuous. The 

regulations also state that if participants 

cannot complete a work-related 

payback, they must complete a cash 

payback. 

Proposed Regulations: First, we 

propose to amend the title of the section 

to indicate that the section relates to the 

reporting requirements of participants, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71936 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

rather than grantees. We also propose to 

move the provisions governing the cash 

and work payback process to § 263.8, 

‘‘What are the payback requirements?’’ 

We also propose to eliminate the 

work-related payback plan and the 

requirement that eligible employment 

must be continuous. 

Reasons: We propose to eliminate the 

participant work plans because these 

plans have been burdensome for 

participants to complete and for the 

Department to track, and they do not 

help participants secure employment. 

We propose to eliminate the continuous 

employment certification because the 

Department would accept part-time 

employment, temporary employment, 

and substitute employment as 

qualifying employment as this 

information can now be accurately 

tracked in the Professional Development 

Program Data Collection System (DCS). 

The DCS is an electronic service 

obligation tracking system that the 

Department now uses to track 

participant training assistance and the 

fulfillment of the work-related payback 

requirements of the program. The 

change to accept other types of 

employment also addresses the 

difficulty many first-time teachers and 

administrators have in securing 

permanent full-time employment. 

Sections 263.11 What are the grantee 

post-award requirements? 

Statute: Section 7122 and the related 

portions of title VII of the ESEA do not 

directly address post-award 

requirements of grantees in the 

Professional Development program. The 

Secretary has the authority to regulate 

the post-award requirements that apply 

to the Professional Development 

program under 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 

3474. Section 7(b) of the Indian 

Education and Self-Determination 

Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638) requires 

that grantees under the Professional 

Development program give, to the 

greatest extent feasible, certain 

employment and procurement 

preferences to members of federally 

recognized Indian tribes. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

add a requirement for grantees to 

conduct a payback meeting with each 

participant. At this meeting, the grantee 

would review the payback requirements 

with the participant before funds are 

provided to the participant. We propose 

to require that grantees report 

information regarding participant 

training and payback information to the 

Department in a manner designated by 

the Department. We also propose to 

require that grantees obtain a signed 

payback agreement from each 

participant. These agreements would 

have to contain information about 

estimated training costs and length of 

training and document that a payback 

meeting took place between the grantee 

and participant. We propose that 

grantees would submit the signed 

payback agreements to the Department 

within seven days of their signing. 

Additionally, we propose a requirement 

that grantees assist participants in 

finding qualifying employment after 

completing the program. Finally, the 

proposed regulations would clarify that 

the hiring preference provisions of the 

Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act apply to this 

program. 

Reasons: The proposed requirements 

regarding the payback meeting and 

signed payback agreement would help 

ensure that participants are aware of the 

total training costs and payback 

responsibilities. We expect these 

changes to reduce misinformation 

regarding payback and address a major 

area of complaint from program 

participants. We propose that grantees 

report to the Secretary, using DCS, their 

participants’ payback information in 

order to strengthen the Department’s 

ability to oversee grantees and track 

their progress toward meeting their 

goals of graduating and placing 

participants in qualifying employment. 

The proposed requirement that grantees 

perform activities to assist participants 

in obtaining employment would 

increase the likelihood that participants 

will be able to enter qualifying 

employment upon graduation, which 

would reduce the number of 

participants completing a cash payback. 

Finally, we propose to add § 263.11(e) 

to make it clear to grantees that the 

hiring preference requirements under 

the Indian Education and Self 

Determination Act apply to grantees’ 

administration of these grants to the 

extent that the projects primarily serve 

members of federally recognized tribes. 

Section 263.12 What are the programspecific requirements for continuation 

awards? 

Statute: Section 7122 and the related 

portions of title VII of the ESEA do not 

directly address the issue of 

continuation awards for the Professional 

Development program. The Secretary 

has the authority to regulate on this 

issue under 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 

3474. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

add to the criteria the Secretary would 

use in making continuation awards. In 

addition to the criteria in 34 CFR 

75.253, we propose to add consideration 

of the extent of grantees’ progress 

toward meeting recruitment, retention, 

graduation, and job placement goals. In 

addition, we propose to clarify that we 

may reduce continuation awards, 

including the portions of grantees’ 

awards allocated to both administrative 

and training costs, based on grantees’ 

failure to meet project goals. 

Reasons: We propose criteria for 

continuation awards based on grantees’ 

specific project goals to emphasize the 

importance of achieving the specific 

goals that grantees establish regarding 

recruitment, retention, graduation, and 

job placement of participants. The 

proposal to allow the Department to 

reduce continuation awards by taking 

reductions from administrative costs, 

student training costs, or both would 

provide incentives for the grantee to 

achieve and maintain enrollment in 

order to receive the full continuation 

award amount. This change would help 

reduce the high number of participants 

who dropout or do not find qualifying 

employment. 

Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

Section 263.20 What definitions apply 

to the Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program? 

Statute: Although section 7121 of the 

ESEA states that Indian organizations 

are eligible entities to receive grants 

under the Demonstration Grants 

program, title VII of the ESEA does not 

define this term. The Secretary has the 

authority to regulate the definitions that 

apply to the Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children program under 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474. 

Current Regulations: Section 263.20 

limits the definition of ‘‘Indian 

organization’’ to an organization that 

has as its primary purpose the 

promotion of the education of Indians. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Indian 

organization’’ to include an Indian 

organization that, in addition to meeting 

other criteria, has as one of its purposes 

the education of Indian students. We 

also propose to add a definition of 

‘‘native youth community projects.’’ 

Reasons: Our reasons for proposing 

the change to the definition of ‘‘Indian 

organization’’ are described in § 263.3, 

‘‘What definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program?’’ 

We propose the definition of ‘‘native 

youth community projects’’ to 

accompany the proposed priority for 

such projects in § 263.21, ‘‘What priority 

is given to certain projects and 

applicants?’’ Under this definition, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71937 

native youth community projects would 

be focused on a specific local 

geographic area, as determined by the 

applicant, and would not be limited to 

Indian reservations. These projects 

would be based on partnerships that 

include at least one tribe or its tribal 

educational agency, as well as a public 

school district or a school funded by the 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE). The proposed 

definition does not limit the types of 

entities that could join in a partnership 

for native youth community projects; 

other entities such as community-based 

organizations or national nonprofit 

organizations could be valuable partners 

in a local initiative. 

Under the statute, eligible entities for 

Demonstration Grants are: Indian tribes, 

Indian organizations, Indian institutions 

(including Indian institutions of higher 

education), BIE-funded schools, LEAs, 

and SEAs. For any competition in 

which we use the proposed priority for 

native youth community projects as an 

absolute priority, any of these eligible 

entities could apply as the lead 

applicant for a grant, but would be 

required to have formed a partnership 

that includes the required tribal and 

educational entities. In many tribal 

areas, including on reservations, there 

are both public schools and BIE schools, 

and students transfer and transition 

between them. Projects in such places 

should ideally include both types of 

educational institutions in order to 

improve outcomes for all local Indian 

students. 

Under the proposed definition, native 

youth community projects would be 

projects, informed by evidence and data, 

addressing the greatest in- and out-ofschool barriers to student college- and 

career-readiness. Projects would also 

address opportunities for improving 

student outcomes and the availability of 

existing programs and funding sources. 

Projects would select and track 

measurable objectives to determine 

progress and success of the project. For 

example, communities could identify, 

as barriers to college- and careerreadiness, inadequate mental health 

supports for students, ineffective 

teacher recruitment and retention 

practices, and low student attendance 

rates. Applicants could identify 

opportunities such as the local school 

board’s interest in a partnership with a 

native language preschool program, the 

superintendent’s hiring goals for more 

Indian instructional and support staff, 

and recent changes to criteria for gifted 

and talented programs that include 

recognition of native arts and 

performance arts. 

The definition would require 

applicants to develop a plan that 

identifies a strategy or strategies to 

address the barriers or opportunities 

that it determines to be most crucial for 

the community. For example, 

applicants, including the tribe, triballycontrolled school, and local school 

district partners, after surveying existing 

services and resources, could jointly 

decide to focus their projects on early 

childhood, with services for preschoolaged children and their parents. They 

could invite health and social service 

organizations to join as partners and 

select as measurable objectives the 

number of kindergarten students who 

meet the criteria on the State’s readiness 

assessment compared to previous years, 

or the number of slots available for highquality full-day prekindergarten. As 

another example, a community could 

identify teen substance abuse as its 

greatest barrier to student success, and 

design services around the goal of 

reducing that barrier. Services could 

include counseling and other supportive 

services to youth struggling with 

substance abuse, and prevention 

programs that improve school 

performance and teach behavior skills 

that increase persistence. The 

partnership could include a nonprofit 

organization with expertise in drug 

abuse prevention and a health services 

organization. Measurable objectives 

could be grade retention and substance 

use rates as reported on a school climate 

survey. 

Section 263.21 What priority is given 

to certain projects and applicants? 

Statute: Section 7143 of the ESEA 

states that the Secretary shall give 

preference to Indian tribes, Indian 

organizations, and Indian institutions of 

higher education applying for grants 

under the Demonstration Grants 

program. In addition, section 7121 states 

that the Secretary shall give priority to 

entities that submit applications 

proposing to combine at least two 

activities listed in section 7121(c)(1) 

over a period of more than one year. 

Section 7121 of the ESEA does not 

establish any other priorities for this 

program. 

Current Regulations: Section 263.21 

currently assigns five points to two 

different competitive preference 

priorities—one for applications 

submitted by an Indian tribe, Indian 

organization, or an Indian institution of 

higher education, and one for 

applications that propose to combine at 

least two activities listed in section 

7121(c)(1) of the ESEA. In addition, 

paragraph (c) of the current regulation 

establishes school readiness projects, 

early childhood and kindergarten 

programs, and transition to college 

programs as absolute priorities that the 

Secretary may choose. 

Proposed Regulations: In proposed 

§ 263.21(a) and (b), instead of setting the 

number of competitive preference 

points at five, as the current regulations 

do, we propose to determine the number 

of points for the current competitive 

preference priorities annually. In other 

words, we will determine the number of 

competitive preference points that are 

available in each year of a new 

competition for the program. In 

addition, in the current priority for 

applications submitted by tribes, Indian 

organizations, and Indian institutions of 

higher education in paragraph (b), we 

propose to delete the language that 

includes members of a consortium of 

eligible entities. 

We propose revising paragraph (c) to: 

Designate these priorities as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

annually; replace the priorities relating 

to early childhood education and 

college preparatory programs that are in 

current paragraph (c)(1)–(3) with a 

priority in paragraph (c)(4) that would 

enable the Department to choose as a 

priority any of the authorized activities 

in section 7121(c) of the statute; and add 

new priorities that the Secretary may 

use in awarding grants under the 

Demonstration Grants program. 

As new priorities, we first propose in 

paragraph (c)(1) a priority for native 

youth community projects. In paragraph 

(c)(2), we propose a priority for 

applications in which the lead 

applicant, or a primary partner that has 

signed the agreement described in 

proposed § 263.22(b)(2) of these 

regulations, has received a grant under 

another program as specified by the 

Secretary. Similarly, in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section, we propose a priority for 

applicants that have the Department’s 

approval to consolidate funds, either 

under the provisions of section 7116 of 

the ESEA or other authority designated 

by the Secretary. 

Reasons: We propose to remove the 

point values associated with the current 

competitive preference priorities in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to allow for 

flexibility to determine the point 

allocation for each year’s competition. 

We also propose to limit the competitive 

preference priority in paragraph (b) to 

tribes serving as the lead applicant, in 

order to build tribal capacity. 

We propose to remove the designation 

of the priorities in paragraph (c) as 

absolute to allow for flexibility to 

determine the priority structure for each 

grant competition. Further, to provide 

maximum flexibility in tailoring the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

demonstration grants to the needs 

identified by the public, rather than 

providing for only the existing priorities 

for early childhood and collegereadiness projects, we propose to enable 

the Department to choose any of the 

authorized activities in section 7121(c) 

of the ESEA as a priority. The twelve 

activities enumerated in the statute 

include early childhood and collegereadiness projects. 

We propose in paragraph (c) a new 

priority for native youth community 

projects to provide an opportunity for 

Indian communities to work together to 

develop and implement projects to 

address the barriers, in and out of 

school, to college- and career-readiness 

that are the most important from that 

community’s point of view. Through 

tribal consultations we have heard that 

tribes would like the maximum 

flexibility to design projects that are 

culturally relevant, that respect tribal 

sovereignty, and that are tailored to a 

community’s specific circumstance. We 

have also heard, and have learned 

through the Department’s State Tribal 

Education Partnership (STEP) grants 

administered by the Office of Indian 

Education, that it is often difficult for 

tribes and local school districts to work 

together and share information. 

However, such coordination benefits 

students; accordingly, this priority 

encourages such coordination, while 

supporting tribal sovereignty and 

fostering local solutions to local 

challenges. 

Because many Federal grant programs 

for Indian students have related goals, 

we have also proposed a priority for an 

applicant, or one of its primary partners, 

that has received a grant under another 

Federal program specified by the 

Secretary. This priority is designed to 

help build on existing Federal resources 

and programs for Indian students. For 

example, in a year in which the 

Secretary identifies in the notice 

inviting applications a competitive 

preference for applicants that have 

received a grant under the Department’s 

STEP program or the Department of 

Interior’s Sovereignty in Indian 

Education Grant program, an applicant 

or consortium member with one of those 

grants would receive preference points. 

The proposed priority for applicants 

that have an approvable plan to 

consolidate funds under section 7116 of 

the ESEA has a similar goal. Section 

7116 permits an entity that receives an 

Indian Education formula grant under 

title VII, Part A of the ESEA—school 

districts, BIE-funded schools, and 

certain tribes that receive a title VII 

formula grant in lieu of the local school 

district—to consolidate funds from 

Federal grants received for Indian 

students. We have heard from some 

school districts that reporting and grant 

administration requirements are 

duplicative for the title VII formula 

grants and the Department of Interior’s 

‘‘Johnson O’Malley’’ grants, and that 

combining those funds, which is 

permissible under a plan submitted 

under section 7116, would be costeffective for both programs. A plan 

submitted under section 7116 would 

also permit consolidation of funds from 

other Federal programs intended to 

benefit Indian students. 

Finally, we propose a priority for 

rural projects. We recognize that many 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

students attend schools in urban areas, 

and urban school districts face unique 

challenges in serving students from 

many different tribal backgrounds in 

their schools. The challenges facing 

rural areas, however, including Indian 

reservations, are of a different nature; 

they often include longstanding 

problems of poverty and lack of 

resources due to the inability of local 

jurisdictions to levy property tax 

revenues on Indian lands. We believe 

the proposed priority for rural areas 

would help such rural areas compete 

with applicants from urban areas that 

have more resources. 

Section 263.22 What are the 

application requirements for these 

grants? 

Statute: To receive a grant under 

section 7121(d) of the ESEA, an eligible 

entity must submit an application at 

such time and in such manner as the 

Secretary may reasonably require. In 

addition to four specific application 

requirements, the Secretary can also 

require other reasonable information. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: The proposed 

regulations would add application 

requirements for Demonstration Grants. 

The requirements in proposed 

§ 263.22(a) are statutory. Proposed 

§ 263.22(b) contains requirements that 

the Secretary could choose in any year 

of a new grant competition. 

Reasons: Proposed § 263.22(b) would 

provide flexibility for the Secretary to 

choose specific application 

requirements to correspond to the 

priorities chosen. The requirement for 

evidence of a needs assessment or other 

data analysis would ensure that projects 

are targeted toward the needs of the 

community. The requirement for a 

partnership agreement would provide 

evidence of a commitment among 

service providers and identify the 

responsibilities of each party. These 

requirements would help ensure that 

high-quality applications are received 

and funded. 

Section 263.23 What is the Federal 

requirement for Indian hiring preference 

that applies to these grants? 

Statute: Section 7(b) of the Indian 

Education and Self-Determination 

Assistance Act requires that, for awards 

that are primarily for the benefit of 

members of federally recognized tribes, 

grantees must give, to the greatest extent 

feasible, certain employment and 

procurement preferences to members of 

federally recognized Indian tribes. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: The proposed 

regulations would clarify that the hiring 

preference provisions of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education 

Assistance Act apply to this program. 

Reasons: Our reasons for proposing 

this change are in ‘‘Section 263.11 What 

are the grantee post-award 

requirements?’’ 

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 proposed 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 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71939 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

regulations only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that these proposed regulations 

are consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The 

potential costs associated with the 

proposed 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 DCS. Additional 

costs would be associated with 

participant and employer information 

entered in the DCS, but the costs of 

carrying out these activities would be 

paid for with program funds. 

The benefits include enhancing 

project design and quality of services to 

better meet the objectives of the 

programs with the end result being more 

participants successfully completing 

their programs of study and obtaining 

employment as teachers and 

administrators. 

For Demonstration grants, 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. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Secretary invites comments on 

how to make these proposed regulations 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol ‘‘§’’ 

and a numbered heading; for example, 

§ 263.1 What is the Professional 

Development Program?) 

• Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed regulations would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that are affected by 

these regulations are LEAs, institutions 

of higher education, tribes, or triballyoperated schools receiving Federal 

funds under this program. The proposed 

regulations would not have a significant 

economic impact on the small entities 

affected because the regulations do not 

impose excessive regulatory burdens or 

require unnecessary Federal 

supervision. The regulations impose 

minimal requirements to ensure the 

proper expenditure of program funds, 

including reporting of participant 

payback information. We note that 

grantees that would be subject to the 

minimal requirements that these 

proposed regulations would impose and 

would be able to meet the costs of 

compliance using Federal funds 

provided through the Indian Education 

Discretionary Grant programs. 

However, the Secretary specifically 

invites comments on the effects of the 

proposed regulations on small entities, 

and on whether there may be further 

opportunities to reduce any potential 

adverse impact or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

regulations without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the Indian Education Discretionary 

Grant programs. Commenters are 

requested to describe the nature of any 

effect and provide empirical data and 

other factual support for their views to 

the extent possible. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: The public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71940 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

Sections 263.6, 263.10, and 263.11 

contain information collection 

requirements that have been approved 

by OMB. These proposed amendments 

do not change the OMB approved data 

collection burden. Section 263.22 

contains information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. As a result of these 

proposed amendments, the Department 

is creating a new application package. 

Under the PRA, the Department has 

submitted a copy of this section to OMB 

for its review. 

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. 

The Department currently collects 

information from applicants for the 

Professional Development program 

using a discretionary Demonstration 

grant application package under the 

approved OMB Control Number 1810– 

0580. For the purposes of the PRA, the 

burden associated with the information 

grantees are required to submit would 

not change as a result of the proposed 

regulations. 

Additionally, grantees, participants, 

and employers currently report 

information to the Department through 

the Indian Education Professional 

Development Grants Program: 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) and Service 

Payback Data Collection System (DCS) 

under the approved OMB Control 

Number 1810–0698. The burden 

associated with the information 

grantees, participants, and employers 

are currently reporting would not 

change as a result of the proposed 

regulations. 

In the final regulations we will 

display the control numbers 1810–0580, 

1810–0698, and 1810–NEW assigned by 

OMB to these information collection 

requirements. 

Section 263.6—How does the Secretary 

evaluate applications for the 

Professional Development program? 

Section 263.6 contains information 

collection requirements that the 

Department uses to evaluate 

applications submitted for the 

Professional Development program. The 

proposed changes to these requirements 

would focus the selection criteria more 

specifically on the program goals and, 

by removing the fixed selection criteria 

points, permit us to tailor competitions 

to changing student needs and 

employment opportunities in the field. 

Based on the current approved burden 

for this program, a total of 50 

applications are received annually for 

the grant competition. It takes each 

applicant 30 hours to complete the 

application package, including time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information, for a total burden of 

1,500 hours for the collection of 

information through the application 

package. Burden costs of applicants are 

calculated at an annual hourly rate of 

$50. Accordingly, the annual 

respondent cost for 50 applicants at 30 

hours is $44,198. These proposed 

changes to the regulations would not 

change the burden hours for this 

collection. 

TABLE A–1 

Data source 

Number of 

estimated 

respondents 

Estimated 

annual hour 

burden per 

respondent 

Estimated 

annual hour 

burden 

Total 

estimated 

annual cost 

Discretionary Grant Professional Development Program Application (1810– 

0580) ............................................................................................................ 50 30 1,500 $44,198 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 50 30 1,500 44,198 

Section 263.10—What are the 

participant payback reporting 

requirements? Section 263.11—What 

are the grantee post-award 

requirements? 

Sections 263.10 and 263.11 contain 

information collection requirements. 

The information collection requirements 

under these sections are already 

approved under OMB Control Number 

1810–0698 and the associated burden 

hours would not change as a result of 

these proposed regulations. 

Sections 263.10 and 263.11 require 

both program participants and grantees 

to report information to the Department. 

Under § 263.10, participants initiate 

contact with Department staff within 30 

days of graduating or exiting the 

program and indicate their intent to 

complete a work-related or cash 

payback. They also submit employment 

information starting six months after 

completion of the program and an 

employment status report every six 

months thereafter. Under § 263.11, 

grantees report information on all 

participants for the length of the grant 

award providing budget and projectspecific performance information in the 

DCS. Grantees also enter into a payback 

agreement with each participant and 

submit a copy to the Department. 

In addition, as part of the information 

collection requirements approved under 

OMB Control Number 1810–0698, 

employers review and verify the 

accuracy of the information entered into 

the DCS by participants for work-related 

payback. 

The three primary purposes for these 

information collection requirements are 

to: 

• Fulfill six GPRA performance 

measures and reporting requirements; 

• Ensure that participants fulfill the 

statutory payback requirement; and 

• Collect budget and project-specific 

performance information from grantees 

for project monitoring. 

The proposed changes to the 

regulations would establish in the 

program regulations the existing grantee 

reporting requirements and streamline 

the participant reporting requirements. 

Table A–2 presents the current annual 

burden and costs for grantees and 

participants, approved under OMB 

Control Number 1810–0698. Under 

OMB control number 1810–0698, there 

are currently 35 grantees and 776 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71941 

participants. The burden for grantees of 

completing the participant record form 

is two hours per participant per year. 

The burden for grantees of preparing 

and submitting a payback agreement is 

3.7 hours per participant and occurs 

when the participant is recruited. On 

average, each grantee has 22 

participants. Burden costs for grantee 

administrators are calculated at an 

hourly rate of $50. Accordingly, the 

annual respondent cost for 35 grantees 

and 776 participants at 1,540 hours is 

$77,000. 

The burden for participants of 

completing the training and 

employment information form is .5 

hours per year. Burden costs for 

participants are calculated at an average 

hourly rate of $24.69. Accordingly, the 

annual burden hours for 388 

participants are $9,580. The burden for 

employers of verifying participant 

employment information is .33 hours 

per year. Burden costs for employers are 

calculated at an average hourly rate of 

$50, with one employer for each 

participant for a total of 776 employers. 

Accordingly, the annual burden hours 

for employers are 259, and the annual 

burden for employers is $12,950. 

The proposed regulations in §§ 263.10 

and 263.11 would not change the 

approved burden hours for this 

collection. 

TABLE A–2 

Data source Number of 

respondents 

Annual hour 

burden per 

respondent 

Annual 

hour burden 

Total annual 

cost 

Grantees: Participant Record Form (Quarterly) .............................................. 35 44 1,540 $77,000 

Grantees: Payback Agreement (Once) ........................................................... 35 3.7 130 6,500 

Participants: Training and Employment Information Form (Twice/year) ......... 776 .5 388 9,580 

Employer Representatives: Employment Verification Form (Twice/year) ....... 776 .33 259 12,950 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 1,622 48.5 2,317 106,030 

Section 263.22—What are the 

application requirements for these 

grants? 

Section 263.22 contains information 

collection requirements. The 

information collection requirements 

under this section have not been 

approved by OMB; the Department has 

submitted a new Information Collection 

Request (ICR) to OMB adding this 

proposed section. Section 263.22 

proposes to add application 

requirements for Demonstration grants, 

such as requirements to submit 

evidence of a local needs assessment or 

other data analysis and a copy of an 

agreement signed by the primary 

partners in the proposed project. 

Table A–3 presents the estimated 

number of respondents, annual burden 

and costs for respondents under the 

proposed ICR 1810–NEW. Under this 

proposed section, the number of 

applicants is estimated at 80, and we 

estimate it would take each applicant 40 

hours to complete the application 

package, for a total burden estimate of 

3,200 hours. Burden costs to applicants 

are estimated at an hourly rate of $45. 

Accordingly, the annual respondent cost 

for 80 applicants is estimated at 

$144,000. 

TABLE A–3 

Data source Estimate of 

respondents 

Annual hour 

burden 

estimate per 

respondent 

Annual hour 

burden 

estimate 

Total annual 

cost estimate 

Discretionary Grant Demonstration Program Application (1810–NEW) .......... 80 40 3,200 $144,000 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 80 40 3,200 144,000 

If you want to comment on the 

information collection requirements, 

please send your comments to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 

Department of Education. Send these 

comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@

omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395– 

6974. Additionally, you may send a 

copy of these comments to the 

Department via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal listed in the below 

ADDRESSES section. 

We have prepared an ICR for these 

collections. If you want to review and 

comment on the ICR, it is available at 

www.reginfo.gov. Click on Information 

Collection Review. This ICR is 

identified as ED–2014–OESE–0050. 

We consider your comments on these 

collections of information in— 

• Deciding whether the collections 

are necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the 

collections, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in 

response to this notice should be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov by selecting 

Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0050 or via 

postal mail, commercial delivery, or 

hand delivery. Please note that 

comments submitted by fax or email 

and those submitted after the comment 

period will not be accepted. Written 

requests for information or comments 

submitted by postal mail or delivery 

should be addressed to the Director of 

the Information Collection Clearance 

Division, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Mailstop L– 

OM–2–2E319LBJ, Room 2E115, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71942 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Electronically mail ICDocketMgr@

ed.gov. Please do not send comments 

here. 

Intergovernmental Review 

These programs are subject to 

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 accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary 

particularly requests comments on 

whether these proposed regulations 

would require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the 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 

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; 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 programs—Indians, Indians— 

education, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships. 

Dated: November 26, 2014. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary of Education 

proposes to amend title 34 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations by revising part 

263 to read as follows: 

PART 263—INDIAN EDUCATION 

DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS 

Subpart A—Professional Development 

Program 

Sec. 

263.1 What is the Professional Development 

Program? 

263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the 

Professional Development program? 

263.3 What definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program? 

263.4 What costs may a Professional 

Development program include? 

263.5 What priority is given to certain 

projects and applicants? 

263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate 

applications for the Professional 

Development program? 

263.7 What are the requirements for a leave 

of absence? 

263.8 What are the payback requirements? 

263.9 What are the requirements for 

payback deferral? 

263.10 What are the participant payback 

reporting requirements? 

263.11 What are the grantee post-award 

requirements? 

263.12 What are the program-specific 

requirements for continuation awards? 

Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

Sec. 

263.20 What definitions apply to the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program? 

263.21 What priority is given to certain 

projects and applicants? 

263.22 What are the application 

requirements for these grants? 

263.23 What is the Federal requirement for 

Indian hiring preference that applies to 

these grants? 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441 and 7442, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—Professional Development 

Program 

§ 263.1 What is the Professional 

Development program? 

(a) The Professional Development 

program provides grants to eligible 

entities to— 

(1) Increase the number of qualified 

Indian individuals in professions that 

serve Indian people; 

(2) Provide training to qualified 

Indian individuals to become teachers, 

administrators, teacher aides, social 

workers, and ancillary educational 

personnel; and 

(3) Improve the skills of qualified 

Indian individuals who serve in the 

education field. 

(b) The Professional Development 

program requires individuals who 

receive training to— 

(1) Perform work related to the 

training received under the program and 

that benefits Indian people, or to repay 

all or a prorated part of the assistance 

received under the program; and 

(2) Periodically report to the Secretary 

on the individual’s compliance with the 

work requirement until work-related 

payback is complete or the individual 

has been referred for cash payback. 

§ 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 in 

consortium with an institution of higher 

education; 

(4) An Indian tribe or Indian 

organization in consortium with an 

institution of higher education; or 

(5) A Bureau of Indian Education 

(Bureau)-funded school. 

(b) Bureau-funded schools are eligible 

applicants for— 

(1) An in-service training program; 

and 

(2) A pre-service training program 

when the Bureau-funded school applies 

in consortium with an institution of 

higher education that is accredited to 

provide the coursework and level of 

degree required by the project. 

(c) Eligibility of an applicant requiring 

a consortium with any institution of 

higher education, including Indian 

institutions of higher education, 

requires that the institution of higher 

education be accredited to provide the 

coursework and level of degree required 

by the project. 

§ 263.3 What definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program? 

The following definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program: 

Bureau-funded school means a 

Bureau of Indian Education school, a 

contract or grant school, or a school for 

which assistance is provided under the 

Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71943 

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 

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 participant’s complete 

their training program and during their 

first year of teaching. Induction services 

support and improve participants’ 

professional performance and promote 

their retention in the field of education 

and teaching. They include, at a 

minimum, these activities: 

(1) High-quality mentoring, coaching, 

and consultation services for the 

participant to improve performance; 

(2) Access to research materials and 

information on teaching and learning; 

(3) Assisting new teachers with use of 

technology in the classroom and use of 

data, particularly student achievement 

data, for classroom instruction; 

(4) Clear, timely and useful feedback 

on performance, provided in 

coordination with the participant’s 

supervisor; and 

(5) Periodic meetings or seminars for 

participants to enhance collaboration, 

feedback, and peer networking and 

support. 

In-service training means activities 

and opportunities designed to enhance 

the skills and abilities of individuals in 

their current areas of employment. 

Institution of higher education means 

an accredited college or university 

within the United States that awards a 

baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate 

degree. 

Participant means an Indian 

individual who is being trained under 

the Professional Development program. 

Payback means work-related service 

or cash reimbursement to the 

Department of Education for the training 

received under the Professional 

Development program. 

Pre-service training means training to 

Indian individuals to prepare them to 

meet the requirements for licensing or 

certification in a professional field 

requiring at least a baccalaureate degree. 

Professional development activities 

means pre-service or in-service training 

offered to enhance the skills and 

abilities of individual participants. 

Secretary means the Secretary of the 

Department of Education or an official 

or employee of the Department acting 

for the Secretary under a delegation of 

authority. 

Stipend means that portion of an 

award that is used for room, board, and 

personal living expenses for full-time 

participants who are living at or near 

the institution providing the training. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442 and 7491) 

§ 263.4 What costs may a Professional 

Development program include? 

(a) A Professional Development 

program may include, as training costs, 

assistance to— 

(1) Fully finance a student’s 

educational expenses including tuition, 

books, and required fees; health 

insurance required by the institution of 

higher education; stipend; dependent 

allowance; technology costs; program 

required travel; and instructional 

supplies; or 

(2) Supplement other financial aid, 

including Federal funding other than 

loans, for meeting a student’s 

educational expenses. 

(b) The Secretary announces the 

expected maximum amounts for 

stipends and dependent allowance in 

the annual notice inviting applications 

published in the Federal Register. 

(c) Other costs that a Professional 

Development program may include, but 

that must not be included as training 

costs, include costs for— 

(1) Collaborating with prospective 

employers within the grantees’ local 

service area to create a pool of 

potentially available qualifying 

employment opportunities; 

(2) In-service training activities such 

as providing mentorships linking 

experienced teachers at job placement 

sites with program participants; and 

(3) Assisting participants in 

identifying and securing qualifying 

employment opportunities in their field 

of study following completion of the 

program. 

§ 263.5 What priority is given to certain 

projects and applicants? 

(a) The Secretary gives priority to 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 of EDGAR and 

includes an Indian tribe, Indian 

organization, or Indian institution of 

higher education will be considered 

eligible to receive priority points only if 

the consortium designates the Indian 

institution of higher education as the 

fiscal agent. In order to be considered a 

consortium application, the application 

must include the consortium agreement, 

signed by all parties. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71944 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(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 that enables 

the individuals to meet the 

requirements for full State certification 

or licensure as a teacher through— 

(A) Training that leads to a bachelor’s 

degree in education before the end of 

the award period, unless the State 

requires a fifth year for licensure in a 

specific subject area; 

(B) For States allowing a degree in a 

specific subject area, training that leads 

to a bachelor’s degree in the subject area 

as long as the training meets the 

requirements for full State teacher 

certification or licensure; or 

(C) Training in a current or new 

specialized teaching assignment that 

requires at least a bachelor’s degree and 

in which a documented teacher shortage 

exists; 

(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 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 

master’s 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 a local 

educational agency (LEA) or Bureaufunded 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) 

§ 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 of this title to establish the 

criteria and factors used to evaluate 

applications submitted in a grant 

competition for the Professional 

Development program. The Secretary 

may also consider one or more of the 

criteria and factors listed in paragraphs 

(a) through (e) of this section to evaluate 

applications. 

(a) Need for project. In determining 

the need for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project will prepare personnel in 

specific fields in which shortages have 

been demonstrated through a job market 

analysis; and 

(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; 

and 

(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; and 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project will incorporate the needs of 

potential employers, as identified by a 

job market analysis, by establishing 

partnerships and relationships with 

appropriate entities (e.g., Bureau-funded 

schools, organizations providing 

educational services to Indian students, 

and LEAs) and developing programs 

that meet their employment needs. 

(d) Quality of project services. The 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following factors in determining the 

quality of project services: 

(1) The likelihood that the proposed 

project will provide participants with 

learning experiences that develop 

needed skills for successful teaching 

and/or administration in schools with 

significant Indian populations; 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project prepares participants to adapt 

teaching and/or administrative practices 

to meet the breadth of Indian student 

needs; 

(3) The extent to which the applicant 

will provide job placement activities 

that reflect the findings of the job 

market analysis and needs of potential 

employers; and 

(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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71945 

(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; and 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

cultural competence (as necessary), of 

project consultants or subcontractors, if 

any. 

§ 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 

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 participants 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. 

§ 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 workrelated 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 twelve-month period 

during a work-related payback, will 

automatically be referred for a cash 

payback unless the participant qualifies 

for a deferral as described in § 263.9. 

(2) The cash payback required shall be 

equivalent to the total amount of funds 

received and expended for training 

received under this program and may be 

prorated based on any approved 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). 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442) 

§ 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 leaving 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 

deferment 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 

deferment must be submitted to the 

Secretary within 30 days of the earlier 

of leaving the Professional Development 

program or the call to military service, 

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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
71946 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

§ 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 

(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 of 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: Pub. L. 93–638, Section 7(b); 25 

U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b)) 

§ 263.12 What are the program-specific 

requirements for continuation awards? 

(a) In making continuation awards, in 

addition to applying the criteria in 34 

CFR § 75.253, the Secretary considers 

the extent to which a grantee has 

achieved its project goals to recruit, 

retain, graduate, and place in qualifying 

employment program participants. 

(b) The Secretary may reduce 

continuation awards, including the 

portion of awards that may be used for 

administrative costs, as well as student 

training costs, based on a grantee’s 

failure to achieve its project goals 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

§ 263.20 What definitions apply to the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children 

program? 

The following definitions apply to the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program: 

Federally supported elementary or 

secondary school for Indian students 

means an elementary or secondary 

school that is operated or funded, 

through a contract or grant, by the 

Bureau of Indian Education. 

Indian means an individual who is— 

(1) A member of an Indian tribe or 

band, as membership is defined by the 

Indian tribe or band, including any tribe 

or band terminated since 1940, and any 

tribe or band recognized by the State in 

which the tribe or band resides; 

(2) A descendant of a parent or 

grandparent who meets the 

requirements described in paragraph (1) 

of this definition; 

(3) Considered by the Secretary of the 

Interior to be an Indian for any purpose; 

(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska 

Native; or 

(5) A member of an organized Indian 

group that received a grant under the 

Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was 

in effect on October 19, 1994. 

Indian institution of higher education 

means an accredited college or 

university within the United States 

cited in section 532 of the Equity in 

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 

1994, any other institution that qualifies 

for funding under the Tribally 

Controlled College or University 

Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo 

Community College, authorized in the 

Navajo Community College Assistance 

Act of 1978. 

Indian organization means an 

organization that— 

(1) Is legally established— 

(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or 

in accordance with State or tribal law; 

and 

(ii) With appropriate constitution, 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 projects 

mean projects that are— 

(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 data, which could be 

either a needs assessment conducted 

within the last three years or other data 

analysis, on: 

(i) The greatest barriers, both in and 

out of school, to the readiness of local 

Indian students for college and careers; 

(ii) Opportunities in the local 

community to support Indian students; 

and 

(iii) Existing local policies, programs, 

practices, service providers, and 

funding sources; 

(4) Focused on one or more barriers or 

opportunities with a community-based 

strategy or strategies and measurable 

objectives; and 

(5) Designed and implemented 

through a partnership of various 

entities, which includes: 

(i) A tribe or its tribal educational 

agency; 

(ii) One or more BIE-funded schools, 

one or more local educational agencies, 

or both; and 

(iii) 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 for Indian students 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71947 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441) 

§ 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 priority to 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. 

(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 primary partners has received 

a grant under a Federal program 

specified by the Secretary in the notice 

inviting applications. 

(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) A local educational agency that is 

eligible under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under title VI, part 

B of the ESEA, or 

(ii) A school that receives funds from 

the Department of the Interior’s Bureau 

of Indian Education. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7426, 7441, and 7473) 

§ 263.22 What are the application 

requirements for these grants? 

(a) Each application must contain— 

(1) A description of how Indian tribes 

and parents of Indian children have 

been, and will be, involved in 

developing and implementing the 

proposed activities; 

(2) Assurances that the applicant will 

participate, at the request of the 

Secretary, in any national evaluation of 

this program; 

(3) Information demonstrating that the 

proposed project is based on scientific 

research, where applicable, or an 

existing program that has been modified 

to be culturally appropriate for Indian 

students; 

(4) A description of how the applicant 

will continue the proposed activities 

once the grant period is over; and 

(5) Other assurances and information 

as the Secretary may reasonably require. 

(b) The Secretary may require an 

applicant to satisfy any of the 

requirements in this paragraph. When 

inviting applications for a competition 

under the Demonstration Grants 

program, the Secretary establishes the 

application requirements through a 

notice inviting applications published 

in the Federal Register. If specified in 

the notice inviting applications, an 

applicant must submit— 

(1) Evidence, which could be either a 

needs assessment conducted within the 

last three years or other data analysis, 

of: 

(i) The greatest barriers, both in and 

out of school, to the readiness of local 

Indian students for college and careers; 

(ii) Opportunities in the local 

community to support Indian students; 

and 

(iii) Existing local policies, programs, 

practices, service providers, and 

funding sources. 

(2) A copy of an agreement signed by 

the primary 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 primary 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 primary 

partners are eligible entities under this 

program. 

(3) Measurable objectives for reaching 

the project goal or goals. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441) 

§ 263.23 What is the Federal requirement 

for Indian hiring preference that applies to 

these grants? 

(a) Awards that are primarily for the 

benefit of Indians are subject to the 

provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638). That 

section requires that, to the greatest 

extent feasible, a grantee— 

(1) Give to Indians preferences and 

opportunities for training and 

employment in connection with the 

administration of the grant; and 

(2) Give to Indian organizations and to 

Indian-owned economic enterprises, as 

defined in section 3 of the Indian 

Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 

1452(e)), preference in the award of 

contracts in connection with the 

administration of the grant. 

(b) For purposes of this section, an 

Indian is a member of any federally 

recognized Indian tribe. 

(Authority: Pub. L. 93–638, Section 7(b); 25 

U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b)) 

[FR Doc. 2014–28354 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4