Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22403 

86See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

authority and/or Regulation Reserve 

Sharing Group. These costs represent an 

estimate of the costs a small entity could 

incur if the entity is identified as an 

applicable entity. The Commission does 

not consider the estimated cost per 

small entity to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Commission did not receive any 

comments regarding this aspect of the 

NOPR. Based on the above, the 

Commission certifies that this Final 

Rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

no regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

VIII. Document Availability 

55. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

56. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the Internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 

this document is available on eLibrary 

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

57. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at (202) 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

IX. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

58. This Final Rule is effective June 

22, 2015. The Commission has 

determined, with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined in section 351 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996.86 The Commission 

will submit the final rule to both houses 

of Congress and to the General 

Accountability Office. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: April 16, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09227 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 1 and 16 

[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0365] 

Administrative Detention of Drugs 

Intended for Human or Animal Use; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is correcting a 

final rule entitled ‘‘Administrative 

Detention of Drugs Intended for Human 

or Animal Use’’ that appeared in the 

Federal Register of May 29, 2014 (79 FR 

30716). The rule sets forth the 

procedures for detention of drugs 

believed to be adulterated or 

misbranded and amends the scope of 

FDA’s part 16 regulatory hearing 

procedures to include the 

administrative detention of drugs. The 

rule published with incorrect statements 

regarding the impact of the final rule on 

small entities. This document corrects 

those errors. 

DATES: Effective April 22, 2015 and 

applicable beginning June 30, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Leongini, Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 

10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, 

Rm. 4339, Silver Spring, MD 20993– 

0002, 301–796–5300, 

FDASIAImplementationORA@

fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of May 29, 2014, in FR 

Doc. 2014–12458, the following 

corrections are made: 

1. On page 30718, in the third 

column, under ‘‘Analysis of Impacts 

(Summary of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis),’’ the last sentence of the 

second paragraph is corrected to read: 

‘‘FDA certifies that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities.’’ 

2. On page 30719, in the first column, 

the third sentence of the last full 

paragraph is corrected to read: ‘‘We 

certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

Dated: April 16, 2015. 

Leslie Kux, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09301 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 263 

RIN 1810–AB19 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0050] 

Indian Education Discretionary Grants 

Program; Professional Development 

Program and Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the 

regulations that govern the Professional 

Development program and the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program (Demonstration 

Grants program), authorized under title 

VII of the Elementary and Secondary 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The 

regulations govern the grant application 

process for new awards for each 

program for the next fiscal year in 

which competitions are conducted for 

that program and subsequent years. For 

the Professional Development program, 

the regulations enhance the project 

design and quality of services to meet 

the objectives of the program; establish 

post-award requirements; and govern 

the payback process for grants in 

existence on the date these regulations 

become effective. For the Demonstration 

Grants program, the regulations add 

new priorities, including a priority for 

native youth community projects 

(NYCPs), and new application 

requirements. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

May 22, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cheek, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

3W207, Washington, DC 20202–6135. 

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

john.cheek@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 3, 2014, the Secretary 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for Indian 

Education Discretionary Grant 

Programs; Professional Development 

Program and Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 71930–71947). 

In the preamble of the NPRM, we 

discussed on pages 71931 through 

71938 the major changes proposed in 

that document to improve the 

Professional Development program and 

the Demonstration Grants program. 

These included the following: 

• Amending § 263.3 to change the 

definitions of ‘‘Indian organization,’’ 

‘‘induction services,’’ and ‘‘professional 

development;’’ and to remove the term, 

‘‘undergraduate degree.’’ 

• Amending § 263.4 to provide 

greater detail about the kinds of training 

costs that may be covered under the 

Professional Development program. 

• Amending § 263.5 to revise the 

competitive preference priorities for 

tribes, Indian organizations, and Indian 

institutions of higher education (IHE); to 

amend pre-service priorities to include 

project-specific goals; and to require 

applicants to submit a letter of support 

from an entity in the applicant’s service 

area agreeing to consider program 

graduates for qualifying employment. 

• Amending § 263.6 to remove fixed 

points assigned to each criterion; to 

include in the regulations only programspecific factors and to eliminate the 

factors that are separately codified in 34 

CFR 75.210; and to revise the selection 

criteria. 

• Amending § 263.7 to specify that 

participants who do not return from a 

leave of absence by the end of the grant 

period will be considered not to have 

completed the program for the purposes 

of project performance reporting. 

• Amending § 263.8 to consolidate all 

of the regulatory provisions that govern 

the payback process, currently in 

§ 263.8 through § 263.10, into § 263.8. 

• Amending § 263.9 to specify the 

two types of deferral that are available: 

Education and military service; to add a 

provision for military deferrals; and to 

remove the provision stating that 

payback begins within six months of 

program completion. 

• Amending § 263.10 to eliminate the 

work-related payback plan and the 

requirement that eligible employment 

must be continuous. 

• Amending § 263.11 to add a 

requirement for grantees to conduct a 

payback meeting with each participant; 

to require that grantees report 

participant and payback information to 

the U.S. Department of Education 

(Department); to require the grantee to 

obtain a signed payback agreement from 

each participant and submit it to the 

Department; to require that grantees 

assist participants in finding qualifying 

employment after completing the 

program; and to clarify that the hiring 

preference provisions of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education 

Assistance Act apply to this program. 

• Amending § 263.12 to add to the 

criteria we use in making continuation 

awards; and to clarify that we may 

reduce continuation awards based on a 

grantee’s failure to meet project goals. 

• Amending § 263.20 to modify the 

definition of ‘‘Indian organization’’; and 

to add a definition of ‘‘native youth 

community project.’’ 

• Amending § 263.21 to remove the 

set number of competitive preference 

priority points; to revise the priority for 

applications submitted by Indian 

entities in paragraph (b), and to propose 

in paragraph (c) five new priorities, 

including one for native youth 

community projects. 

• Adding § 263.22 to include 

application requirements for the 

Demonstration Grants program. 

• Adding § 263.23 to clarify that the 

hiring preference provisions of the 

Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Act apply to this program. 

These final regulations contain 

changes from the NPRM, which are fully 

explained in the Analysis of Comments 

and Changes section of this document. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPRM, 15 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

regulations. We discuss substantive 

issues under the section number of the 

item to which they pertain. Several 

comments did not pertain to a specific 

section of the proposed regulations. We 

discuss these comments based on the 

general topic area. Generally, we do not 

address technical and other minor 

changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the regulations since 

publication of the NPRM follows. 

General Comments 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed strong support for the 

changes in the NPRM generally. One 

commenter requested that the Secretary 

issue a tribal consultation policy. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the changes to the Professional 

Development program and the 

Demonstration Grants program. The 

tribal consultation policy is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. However, we 

are in the process of developing an 

updated tribal consultation policy. 

During this process, we are consulting 

with tribes, in accordance with the 

requirements of Executive Order 13175. 

We expect to publish this revised policy 

during FY 2015. 

Changes: None. 

Professional Development Program 

General 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed support for the Professional 

Development program, and gave 

examples of impressive results from 

past grants, which have expanded the 

number of American Indian teachers in 

tribal communities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we ensure active collaboration among 

grantees, tribes, and local schools to 

ensure that the training provided under 

the grants meets the educational needs 

of local communities. 

Discussion: We expect that the 

competitive priority for consortia that 

include a tribal entity (§ 263.5(a)), the 

new priority for applicants with a letter 

of support from a school district or other 

entity that will consider hiring 

graduates of this project (§ 263.5(b)(3)), 

and the new selection criteria for need 

that relates to employment 

opportunities and shortages in certain 

fields (§ 263.6(a)), will all contribute to 

the commenter’s expressed goal. 

Changes: None. 

Eligible Applicants (§ 263.2) 

Comments: Several commenters 

objected to the requirement that a tribal 

applicant (tribe or Indian organization) 

be required to apply in consortium with 

an IHE. One commenter asked that we 

allow a period of time after funding in 

order for a grantee to obtain a partner 

IHE. Another commenter asked that we 

define ‘‘in consortium with an 

institution of higher education,’’ in 

terms of the level of commitment 

required from the IHE, and suggested we 

permit an Indian organization to apply 

as a sole applicant without an IHE. This 

commenter also asked whether an 

Indian organization can apply with 

more than one IHE, and if so, what is 

required to demonstrate the 

partnerships. 

Discussion: The statute requires that 

any eligible entity that is not an IHE 

(other than a Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)- 

funded school) must apply in 

consortium with an IHE (section 7122 of 

the ESEA), and we cannot change that 

statutory requirement. That eligibility 

requirement also precludes us from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22405 

permitting grantees to obtain a partner 

IHE after grants are made; for entities 

required to be in a consortium with an 

IHE in order to be eligible for a grant, 

the application must be from the 

consortium. 

With regard to the level of 

commitment required from the IHE, we 

do not believe it is necessary to 

prescribe the details of an arrangement 

with an IHE. To demonstrate an eligible 

consortium, the applicant must submit 

a consortium agreement that complies 

with the requirements of 34 CFR 

75.127–129, including the requirement 

that the agreement detail the activities 

to be performed by each member, and 

bind each member to every statement 

and assurance in the application. The 

IHE is the entity that will provide the 

actual education and training to Indian 

individuals to enable those individuals 

to teach in or administer schools serving 

Indians. By receiving a federally-funded 

education, these individuals do not 

need to take on loans and other 

financial obligations that can be onerous 

and can often dissuade students from 

pursuing a career in education. The 

level of commitment required by the 

IHE is large; the IHE educates and trains 

the participants, granting them the 

degree needed to teach or administer in 

accordance with State requirements. 

Often the IHE is the entity that recruits 

the students, assists with job placement, 

provides support services during the 

first year of a participant’s teaching or 

administrative job, and complies with 

the grantee reporting requirements. 

However, an eligible entity partner such 

as an Indian organization or other 

nonprofit could provide these required 

support services under the Professional 

Development grant. It is possible for an 

eligible entity to apply in consortium 

with more than one IHE. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

eligibility for these grants be expanded 

to include national non-profit 

organizations. 

Discussion: The eligibility 

requirements are statutory (see section 

7122 of the ESEA) and we cannot 

expand eligibility beyond the statutory 

authority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether two local educational agencies 

(LEAs) and a particular land grant 

college that does not target Native 

students could serve as partners for the 

Professional Development program 

under the proposed changes. The 

commenter also asked whether a 

regional education association (REA) is 

eligible to apply. 

Discussion: Any number of eligible 

entities, in consortium with an eligible 

IHE, can join together to apply for a 

Professional Development grant. The 

IHE must be accredited to provide the 

coursework and level of degree required 

by the project, as specified in § 263.2(c). 

The IHE does not have to target or serve 

primarily Native students; however, in 

order to receive the priority for an 

application submitted by an Indian 

entity, the IHE must be an Indian IHE 

that meets the definition in § 263.3. A 

consortium applicant must submit a 

consortium agreement that complies 

with the requirements of 34 CFR 

75.127–129. With regard to the 

eligibility of an REA, that entity would 

need to meet the definition of one of the 

eligible entities: IHE, State educational 

agency (SEA), LEA, Indian tribe or 

Indian organization, or BIE-funded 

school, and would need to partner with 

an eligible IHE. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions (§ 263.3) 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported the broader definition of 

‘‘Indian organization’’ that provides 

eligibility to organizations that have 

education as one of their purposes, 

rather than the sole purpose. One 

commenter asked that we ensure that 

the expansion of the definition would 

not preclude existing grantees from 

receiving funds. 

Discussion: We agree that the broader 

definition better serves the purposes of 

this program. The change in definition 

will not affect existing grantees, which 

will continue to be eligible for 

continuation awards. It also will not 

affect past grantees that qualified under 

the more narrow definition and will 

continue to be eligible if they apply for 

a new grant. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

that the definition of ‘‘Indian institution 

of higher education’’ be expanded to 

include Native American Serving NonTribal Institutions (NASNTIs). 

Discussion: ‘‘Indian IHE’’ is currently 

defined in § 263.3 of these regulations, 

and includes only tribal colleges and 

universities. NASNTIs are defined in 

Title III, Parts A and F, of the Higher 

Education Act, to mean IHEs that are 

not tribal colleges or universities, but 

that meet certain eligibility 

requirements, including a minimum 

number of enrolled students who are 

Native American. We decline to change 

the definition of ‘‘Indian IHE’’ for ESEA 

because, while the term ‘‘Indian IHE’’ is 

not defined in the ESEA, we believe that 

the plain meaning of the statutory term 

is limited to tribal colleges and 

universities, as reflected in our 

regulations. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities (§ 263.5) 

Comments: Several commenters asked 

that the priority for Indian entities in 

§ 263.5(a) be expanded to include 

NASNTIs. These commenters stated that 

NASNTIs are often located in close 

proximity to tribal communities, and 

gave examples, including an institution 

that was founded in response to local 

tribal needs for qualified teachers in 

reservation schools, and another 

institution that educates and trains large 

numbers of native students to serve as 

teachers on a reservation. One 

commenter asked that the priority 

include NASNTIs that partner with a 

tribal college, for example, when 

students feed from a two-year tribal 

college into a four-year NASNTI. 

Another commenter requested that the 

priority include all IHEs that 

predominantly serve Native students. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that many NASNTIs fulfill 

an important role in educating Native 

students to serve as teachers in tribal 

communities. However, Congress 

specifically identified in section 7143 of 

the ESEA the group of entities to which 

we must give priority (Indian tribes, 

Indian organizations, and Indian IHEs). 

This group does not include NANSTIs, 

and we decline to expand the priority 

for Indian entities to include NASNTIs. 

Furthermore, because non-Indian IHEs, 

including those designated as NASNTI, 

received almost half of all awards under 

this grant program over the past three 

years, we decline to add an additional 

priority for NASNTIs. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Several commenters 

objected to the consolidation of the two 

existing priorities (in current § 263.5(a) 

and (b)) in proposed § 263.5(a)); 

previously, one priority was for 

applications from any tribal entity, and 

one priority was for a consortium that 

includes an Indian IHE as fiscal agent. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

comments about the difficulties caused 

by our proposal to combine the two 

existing priorities into one. The statute 

requires that we give priority to 

applications from all three types of 

tribal entities: Tribes, Indian 

organizations, and Indian IHEs. As 

proposed, the combined priority could 

result in a tribal entity that is part of a 

consortium, but is not the fiscal agent or 

lead applicant, not receiving a 

preference. However, when an Indian 

IHE or other Indian entity is the lead 

applicant in a consortium, that entity 

has more influence in directing and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

administering the grant. Therefore we 

are revising the regulations to create two 

separate priorities rather than the 

proposed combined one. 

The first priority, in § 263.5(a)(1), 

gives preference to an Indian entity— 

tribe, organization, or IHE—either 

applying alone, or in a consortium for 

which it serves as the lead applicant. 

The second priority, in § 263.5(a)(2), is 

for an Indian entity that is part of a 

consortium but is not the lead applicant. 

This will satisfy the statutory 

requirement to give priority to the three 

types of Indian entities, while enabling 

us to provide a competitive preference 

to applications for which the Indian 

entity is the sole or lead applicant. An 

applicant cannot receive competitive 

preference points under both of these 

priorities. 

Changes: We have revised § 263.5(a) 

to create two separate competitive 

preference priorities. The first is for an 

Indian entity—tribe, organization, or 

IHE—either applying alone or as lead 

applicant in a consortium. The second 

is for an Indian entity that is part of a 

consortium but is not the lead applicant. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned about the requirement that a 

consortium applicant would be eligible 

for the priority in proposed § 263.5(a) 

only if an Indian IHE leads the 

consortium as fiscal agent. The 

commenter stated that the high 

overhead costs of IHEs limit the funding 

delivered directly to the program, and 

that the requirement would limit 

flexibility for an entity that trains 

teachers and administrators by working 

with a variety of IHEs to provide the 

required coursework. This commenter 

suggested that, alternatively, an Indian 

organization should be able to serve as 

lead applicant or fiscal agent in a 

consortium, and be eligible for the 

priority. 

Discussion: Our goal was to ensure 

that, in order to receive competitive 

preference points, a consortium would 

be led by an Indian entity. We agree 

with the commenter, however, that the 

proposed requirement that the lead of 

the consortium must be an IHE was too 

narrow. We agree that it is possible for 

an Indian organization to operate a 

Professional Development grant in 

consortium with an IHE, and for the 

Indian organization to be the actual lead 

entity for the project. The same is true 

for a tribe as lead applicant. The tribe 

or Indian organization would receive 

the grant and provide the funding to the 

IHE to pay for the cost of the 

participants’ education. We agree that 

this could result in more direct funding 

for student training. Therefore, we are 

revising the priority in § 263.5(a)(1) to 

permit a consortium to receive a 

competitive preference if the lead 

applicant is an Indian tribe, Indian 

organization, or Indian IHE. Before 

awarding priority points, we will 

examine the proposed project and 

activities to ensure that the Indian entity 

will in fact be serving as lead entity for 

the project. 

Changes: We have revised 

§ 263.5(a)(1) to provide that a 

consortium may receive a competitive 

preference if the lead applicant is an 

Indian tribe, Indian organization, or 

Indian IHE. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: During our internal 

review we reexamined the proposed 

requirement that the Indian entity 

leading a consortium must be the fiscal 

agent in order to receive priority points. 

While not common, we recognize that it 

is possible to have a fiscal agent that is 

not the lead applicant. Accordingly, in 

§ 263.5(a)(1) we are revising the 

proposed requirement that an Indian 

entity be the ‘‘fiscal agent,’’ to instead 

require that the Indian entity be the lead 

applicant, which is the entity that 

receives the grant. 

Changes: We have revised § 263.5(a) 

to change the preference for consortia in 

which the fiscal agent is an Indian 

entity, to consortia in which the lead 

applicant is an Indian entity. 

Comments: Several commenters were 

generally concerned that the proposed 

priority in § 263.5(a) would prevent 

entities other than tribal entities from 

obtaining grants. 

Discussion: Due to the confusion 

evident in some comments, we are 

clarifying that the priorities in § 263.5(a) 

for tribal entities are competitive 

preference priorities. We will not use 

those priorities as absolute priorities, 

but we will use them as competitive 

preference priorities in each year of a 

new competition. If they were absolute 

priorities, then a non-tribal IHE would 

not be eligible to receive a grant, which 

would be inconsistent with the statutory 

list of eligible entities. This is different 

from the priorities in § 263.5(b), which 

we can designate as absolute or 

competitive in any year, or can decline 

to use. 

Changes: We have revised § 263.5(a) 

to clarify that the priorities for tribal 

entities are competitive preference 

priorities. 

Comments: One commenter objected 

to removing the point values from the 

priorities for applications submitted by 

Indian entities, arguing that it would 

cause confusion for applicants and that 

applicants may not have timely 

information about eligibility 

requirements. Another commenter was 

opposed to removing the five-point 

priority for tribal colleges. Another 

commenter suggested that we rely upon 

letters of support to show collaboration 

but not assign preference points for 

partnerships. 

Discussion: We removed the specific 

number of points from the priorities for 

Indian entities, including the five points 

for tribal colleges, so that we have the 

flexibility to assign more (or fewer) 

points in a particular grant competition. 

This will allow us to provide additional 

points as needed in any application year 

to ensure that tribal entities, including 

tribal colleges, are eligible to receive a 

competitive preference. We do not 

believe this will confuse applicants. For 

each year in which we have a 

competition for new awards, we will 

announce the points for the tribal entity 

preferences in the notice inviting 

applications. Typically the notice is 

published 60 days in advance of the 

application deadline. 

With regard to the comment objecting 

to the awarding of competitive 

preference points for partnerships, 

eligible entities for this program include 

consortia, and we are required by statute 

to give priority to Indian entities; thus 

consortia that include such Indian 

entities will receive priority under 

revised § 263.5(a). An Indian IHE, 

however, that applies as the lead 

applicant in a consortium would receive 

no advantage, under § 263.5(a), over an 

Indian IHE that is the sole applicant, 

because both scenarios are included in 

§ 263.5(a)(1) and would receive an equal 

number of competitive preference 

points. With respect to letters of 

support, § 263.5(b)(3) adds a new 

priority for applicants that include in 

their applications a letter of support 

from an entity, including a local school 

district, that agrees to consider program 

graduates for qualifying employment. 

We believe that such letters of support 

strengthen the likelihood that graduates 

will find employment in schools serving 

Indian students following their training. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

whether we are removing the absolute 

priority for pre-service training. Several 

commenters requested that we permit 

the use of funds to support and train 

Indian individuals in obtaining masters 

and doctoral degrees under the 

priorities in proposed § 263.5(b) for preservice training for teachers and 

administrators. 

Discussion: We have not removed the 

priority for pre-service training, and in 

any grant competition in which the 

Department uses this priority, we retain 

the discretion to designate that priority 

an absolute priority (see § 263.5(b)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22407 

With regard to masters and doctoral 

degrees, funds under the Professional 

Development program can be used to 

support a student in obtaining any 

degree that is required by the State for 

the teaching or administrative position 

for which individuals are being trained. 

However, the focus of this program is on 

preparing teachers and administrators 

for elementary and secondary 

education. The current regulations 

include graduate degrees as part of the 

definitions of ‘‘full-time student’’ and 

‘‘pre-service training’’ in § 263.3, and we 

have not changed those definitions. 

However, we are providing further 

clarification in the priorities for preservice training for teachers and 

administrators by removing the 

references to bachelor’s degrees for 

teachers and master’s degrees for 

administrators so that a student 

pursuing a higher-level degree may be 

supported as a participant under this 

program if that degree is required for a 

specific position. However, because we 

interpret the statute to support only the 

preparation of teachers and 

administrators in elementary and 

secondary education, we are not 

expanding the scope of the program to 

include doctoral degrees for Indian 

students seeking employment in higher 

education. 

Changes: We have revised the 

priorities for pre-service training in 

proposed §§ 263.5(b)(1) and (2) to 

remove the references to a ‘‘bachelor’s 

degree’’ for pre-service teacher training, 

and, for administrator training, changing 

the reference from ‘‘master’s degree’’ to 

‘‘graduate degree.’’ 

Comments: None. 

Discussion: During our internal 

review we analyzed the existing 

requirements in the priorities for preservice teacher training and 

administrator training (in current 

§ 263.5(c), proposed § 263.5(b)) and 

believe it would be helpful to clarify 

certain provisions. We are revising the 

regulation to make clear that the 

requirement that training be provided 

before the end of the award period 

applies to all three situations: An 

education degree, a subject-matter 

degree, and specialized training. We are 

removing the exception for a fifth year 

from the education degree provision 

because a review of funded projects 

shows that this exception is not 

necessary. We are also removing, in the 

provision on degrees in a subject area 

(new § 263.5(b)(1)(i)(B)), the reference to 

the requirement that training meet the 

requirements for full State certification 

or licensure, because it is redundant 

with the introductory language of that 

paragraph. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

for pre-service training for teachers in 

proposed § 263.5(b)(1) by moving the 

reference to earning a degree before the 

end of the award period from proposed 

§ 263.5(b)(1)(i)(a) to the introductory 

language of final § 263.5(b)(1)(i), by 

removing the proposed exception for a 

fifth year from § 263.5(b)(1)(i)(A), and by 

removing the reference to the 

requirement that training meets the 

requirements for full State certification 

or licensure from proposed 

§ 263.5(b)(1)(i)(B). 

Selection Criteria (§ 263.6) 

Comments: One commenter objected 

to the job market analysis element of the 

selection criterion for ‘‘Need for Project’’ 

in proposed § 263.6, and stated that this 

would increase the burden for 

applicants to search for and interpret 

market analysis data. The commenter 

also requested that appropriate market 

analysis Web site links be made 

available to applicants. 

Discussion: Under the selection 

criterion ‘‘Need for Project’’ in § 263.6, 

we will evaluate the extent to which the 

proposed project will prepare personnel 

in specific fields, and the extent to 

which employment opportunities exist 

in the project’s service area, with both 

elements to be demonstrated by a job 

market analysis. The purpose of a job 

market analysis is to determine whether 

there is a need for qualified education 

personnel to fill vacancies in teacher 

and administrator positions within the 

geographic region to be served. To 

conduct the job market analysis, 

applicants can use accessible data 

sources at the national, State and local 

level to determine current and future 

teacher and administrator shortages in 

selected fields. Because job market data 

are now generally available online, a 

market analysis would not increase an 

applicant’s burden. We also note that 

prior applicants under the current 

regulations also addressed need for 

personnel, documenting education 

personnel shortages in the region to be 

served and designing their proposed 

programs accordingly. 

Accessible resources for determining 

teacher shortages are available at the 

national level; however, applicants 

should rely on State and local sources 

for more accurate and timely data. We 

also note that this is an element of a 

selection criterion, not an application 

requirement, so it is optional for 

applicants to address, although we 

encourage all applicants to do so. 

Changes: None. 

Payback Requirements (§ 263.8) 

Comments: Commenters supported 

the proposed regulations clarifying the 

payback requirements and procedures. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for these changes. 

Changes: None. 

Demonstration Grants Program 

General 

Comments: Several commenters were 

generally supportive of the proposed 

changes to the Demonstration Grants 

program regulations. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the changes. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions (§ 263.20) 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the proposed definition of 

‘‘Indian organization’’ as it applies to 

both this program and the Professional 

Development program; it is the same 

definition for both programs. 

Discussion: We address those 

comments under the discussion of 

Definitions for the Professional 

Development program (§ 263.3). 

Changes: None. 

Definition of Native Youth Community 

Project 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported the proposed definition of 

‘‘Native Youth Community Project,’’ and 

specifically the requirement that a 

community come together to address the 

adverse experiences affecting Indian 

children. However, several other 

commenters expressed concern that the 

requirement for a partnership among the 

specified entities could adversely affect 

the success of some applications. For 

example, one commenter was concerned 

that some applicants do not have readily 

available partner organizations, which 

would reduce the likelihood that such 

applicants would receive funding. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for encouraging partnerships among 

entities to more effectively address the 

complex barriers facing native youth. 

We believe that greater collaboration 

among the organizations increases the 

likelihood that an NYCP will improve 

the college and career readiness of 

Indian youth. Furthermore, we believe 

that proposed projects that demonstrate 

the existence of a partnership at the 

time of application are more likely to 

become strong, viable projects. 

Therefore, we disagree with the 

commenters who objected to the 

partnership requirement. 

While we cannot ensure that 

partnerships and agreements formed in 

order to apply for a grant will stand the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

test of time, we believe that an applicant 

with a formal partnership agreement 

will have a greater chance of success 

than an applicant with only letters of 

support. We expect that in ranking 

applications, reviewers will judge the 

quality of the partnerships presented in 

those application, based on the selection 

criteria. Moreover, a partnership that 

fails after being awarded a grant would 

not be able to show substantial progress 

in order to receive continuation 

funding. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we not give priority to applicants 

simply because of their geographic 

proximity to locally available and 

willing partners. 

Discussion: We agree that if a 

community comes together to create an 

NYCP, that partnership should have the 

flexibility to include non-local partners. 

A tribe and school district may wish to 

engage with a national nonprofit 

organization that is skilled in addressing 

the focus of the local project, whether it 

is academic success, drug prevention, 

parental engagement in schools, or any 

other project focus. Therefore we are 

broadening part of the definition of 

NYCP; rather than requiring the 

applicant or a partner to show that it has 

the capacity to improve outcomes for 

Indian students, we are requiring the 

applicant or a partner to demonstrate 

that it has the capacity to improve 

outcomes that are relevant to the project 

focus. This allows an applicant to 

partner with a national organization that 

has demonstrated the capacity to 

improve outcomes that are relevant to 

the project focus, and not be limited to 

locally available and willing partners. 

There is a statutory application 

requirement that projects must be based 

either on scientific research or on an 

existing program that has been modified 

to be culturally appropriate for Indian 

students (see § 263.22(a)(3). Thus, an 

applicant that partners with an entity 

that has demonstrated success with nonIndian students, and proposes to use 

that entity’s program model, will need 

to explain how it has modified that 

program to be culturally appropriate. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(6) of the definition of NYCP in § 263.20 

to provide that an applicant or a partner 

must have demonstrated the capacity to 

improve outcomes that are relevant to 

the project focus. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we ensure that States and local 

public schools actively participate and 

coordinate with tribal grantees. 

Discussion: We are requiring that at 

least one tribe and at least one local 

school district be partners in a proposed 

project. We are not requiring State 

involvement, although States may be 

partners in a project. Because of the 

focus on local community-driven 

solutions, it would not be appropriate to 

require a State’s involvement. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Two commenters asked 

that we include tribal colleges in NYCP 

partnerships, and one asked that we 

include both tribal colleges and 

NASNTIs. 

Discussion: Tribal colleges are eligible 

entities under the Demonstration Grants 

program, and nothing in the regulations 

precludes either a tribal college or a 

NASNTI from being a partner in an 

NYCP. Although we agree that a college 

or university could be a valuable partner 

in an NYCP, we decline to make tribal 

colleges or any other IHEs mandatory 

partners in NYCPs, because the focus of 

these projects is a local community area, 

and not all tribal communities have a 

college in the vicinity. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: We received several 

comments asking whether one NYCP 

can include multiple tribes. We also 

received additional comments 

expressing the concern that urban 

communities often include Indian youth 

from many different tribes, and that 

urban applicants might face unfair 

challenges in partnering with tribes or 

their tribal education agencies because 

of the distance between the tribes and 

the urban communities in which the 

Indian youth live and attend school. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that a partnering tribe would refuse to 

serve youth from other tribes. Some 

commenters specifically requested that 

we eliminate the requirement that 

applicants form a partnership with a 

tribe. Another commenter asked 

whether one tribe can participate in 

more than one NYCP. 

Discussion: Nothing in the definition 

of NYCP prohibits a project from 

including multiple tribes as partners. To 

meet the NYCP definition, applicants 

must identify and address significant 

barriers and needs within a local 

community. It is likely that in many 

areas, including urban areas, Indian 

youth and their families from many 

tribes live within a defined local 

community. Also, members of one tribe 

often live in several different 

communities. The entities responsible 

for Indian youth in the identified local 

community should partner with one 

another. We agree that certain NYCP 

applicants may need to partner with 

multiple tribes or their tribal education 

agencies in order to address the 

identified need in the local community. 

We are therefore clarifying in the final 

regulations that partnerships can 

include more than one tribe. 

However, we disagree with the 

commenters that it is unfair to urban 

areas to require applicants to partner 

with one or more tribes. The NYCPs are 

intended to support the involvement of 

tribes in the education of Indian 

children, which is one of the goals of 

title VII of the ESEA. Each project must 

therefore include a partnership among a 

school district or BIE-funded school, a 

tribe or its education agency, and other 

organizations as necessary, to address 

the need identified by the project. The 

partnering entities must agree to serve 

the Indian youth living in the defined 

local community, regardless of their 

tribal membership. 

With regard to whether one tribe can 

participate in more than one NYCP, 

nothing in the regulations prohibits 

such participation. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(5)(i) of the definition of NYCP in 

§ 263.20 to include one or more tribes or 

their tribal education agencies. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the requirement that NYCPs include a 

school district as a partner, arguing that 

this would lead to more bureaucracy 

and undue attention to the school 

district’s own programs as opposed to 

those favored by a qualifying Indian 

organization. 

Discussion: We believe that schools, 

tribes, and Indian organizations 

similarly value better outcomes for 

Indian youth, including academic 

achievement and readiness for 

postsecondary education and 

employment. The NYCPs are intended 

to leverage the resources and capacity 

currently spread among tribes, LEAs, 

BIE-funded schools, or other 

organizations, through a partnership to 

increase the likelihood of reaching these 

better outcomes. We believe that, 

especially for communities where most 

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

students attend the local public schools, 

the inclusion of the LEA in these 

projects is essential to the success of the 

projects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department should revise the 

definition of NYCP to allow for a project 

to include a partnership with 

organizations such as the Boys and Girls 

Club of America. 

Discussion: Paragraph (5) of the NCYP 

definition permits community 

organizations to be included in a 

partnership. However, we do not 

recommend any specific community 

organizations as partners in an NYCP. 

The applicants must determine which 

entities are necessary partners in order 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22409 

to address the identified need of the 

Indian youth in the local community to 

be served by the NYCP. 

Changes: None. 

Definition of ‘‘Rural’’ 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we add a definition of ‘‘rural’’ in 

the final regulations. 

Discussion: There is no need to define 

‘‘rural’’ because the priority for rural 

applicants under § 263.21(c)(5) explains 

which entities are considered rural. We 

include further discussion of the rural 

priority under the Priorities section of 

the Analysis of Comments and Changes 

in this notice. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities (§ 263.21) 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported our proposal to expand the 

Demonstration Grants program beyond 

the two absolute priorities of early 

childhood and college readiness. One 

commenter further commended the 

Department for supporting complex 

projects to address the complex issues 

facing some Indian communities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Several commenters 

generally objected to the proposed 

revisions to the priorities in § 263.21(b), 

and to the parallel provision in the 

Professional Development regulations. 

One objected to removing the priority 

preference for consortia that include an 

Indian entity; another commenter 

objected to removing the required 

number of priority preference points. 

Discussion: The statute for both the 

Professional Development and 

Demonstration Grants requires that we 

give priority to applications from all 

three types of tribal entities: Tribes, 

Indian organizations, and Indian IHEs. 

We proposed to remove the priority for 

consortia that include a tribal entity 

because a tribal entity that is not a sole 

applicant or lead applicant in a 

consortium does not necessarily have 

the influence that a sole applicant, or 

lead applicant in a consortium, has. 

However, if we only give priority when 

the Indian entity is the lead applicant, 

it would result in a tribal entity 

receiving no preference when it is part 

of a consortium but not the lead 

applicant. Therefore we are creating two 

separate priorities for the Demonstration 

Grants, similar to those created for the 

Professional Development Grants. The 

first priority, in § 263.21(b)(1), gives 

preference to an Indian entity—tribe, 

organization, or IHE—either applying 

alone, or in a consortium or partnership 

if it serves as the lead applicant. The 

second priority, in § 263.21(b)(2), is for 

an Indian entity that is part of a 

consortium or partnership but is not the 

lead applicant. This will enable us to 

satisfy the statutory requirement to give 

priority to the three types of Indian 

entities, while retaining the ability to 

provide more points to applications for 

which the Indian entity is the sole or 

lead applicant. Applicants cannot 

receive points under both of these 

priorities. 

With regard to the concern about 

removing point values from the 

regulations, we have removed the fivepoint limitation for both priorities so 

that we have the flexibility to assign 

more (or fewer) points as needed to 

ensure that applicants from tribal 

entities have an advantage over other 

applicants. 

Changes: We have revised § 263.21(b) 

to create two separate competitive 

preference priorities. The first priority is 

for an Indian entity—tribe, organization, 

or IHE—either applying alone or as lead 

applicant in a consortium or 

partnership. The second is for an Indian 

entity that is part of a consortium or 

partnership but is not the lead 

applicant. 

Comments: One commenter objected 

to the revisions in § 263.21(c) that 

would give the Department discretion to 

choose specific priorities for a 

competition in any given year. The 

commenter stated that changing the 

priorities would make it hard for longterm grantees to create stable programs 

across multiple years. 

Discussion: Under § 263.21(c), the 

Department has the discretion to choose 

any of the listed priorities in any year 

the Department conducts a grant 

competition for this program. This is 

consistent with the previous provisions 

in the same paragraph, which provided 

that the Department could choose 

among three different priorities in any 

given year, although all of those were 

absolute priorities. We recognize that 

potential applicants will need to 

respond to the priorities as published 

under each notice inviting applications. 

However, grantees will have the full 

grant period, typically 48 months, to 

implement their projects. We also note 

that there is no guarantee that a grantee 

under a discretionary grant program will 

receive another grant under the same 

program at the end of its grant period. 

The revisions to the priorities in 

§ 263.21(c) enable the Secretary to 

prioritize projects that address the needs 

of the target communities. 

Changes: None. 

Priority for Native Youth Community 

Project (NYCP) (§ 263.21(c)(1)) 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported the proposed priority for 

NYCP; one commenter mentioned the 

benefits of collaboration between tribes 

and schools and noted how out-ofschool environments significantly affect 

in-classroom success. Other commenters 

requested that we support parent and 

family engagement in funding NYCPs. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the NYCP priority. We agree that 

parent and family engagement both in 

school and in the community is a 

crucial component in efforts to improve 

the outcomes of all children, including 

Indian children and youth. Each 

applicant must include in its 

application a description of how parents 

of Indian children have been and will be 

involved in developing and 

implementing the proposed activities, as 

required by § 263.22(a)(1). In addition, 

an existing AI/AN parent organization 

or tribal parent committee could serve 

as a valuable partner in an NYCP. 

Changes: None. 

Priority for Grantees Under Other 

Programs (§ 263.21(c)(2)) 

Comments: Several commenters 

objected to the priority for applicants 

that have been awarded grants under 

other programs. One commenter stated 

that Indian organizations would be 

unfairly excluded under this priority, 

which would interfere with their ability 

to receive funding. Another commenter 

stated that the priority would provide 

undue advantage to applicants that are 

already receiving Federal funds. 

Discussion: This priority is designed 

to increase the likelihood that funded 

projects will attain their goals. The 

Demonstration Grants program is 

intended to target the most persistent 

issues facing Indian children, and to 

provide models that others can use. 

Grantees with existing resources to 

leverage are likely to have greater 

opportunities to address the needs of 

Indian children and to provide models 

that can be disseminated broadly. 

Although we did not receive a 

comment requesting clarification, the 

proposed regulations did not state the 

timeframe within which applicants 

must have received these other awards 

in order to qualify for this preference. 

We are clarifying that, to receive 

preference under this priority, the lead 

applicant or its partner must have 

received an award within the last four 

years. A longer period of time would 

make it less likely that the grantee could 

build on the experience gained by that 

grant. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Changes: We have revised 

§ 263.21(c)(2) to provide that the 

applicant or one of its partners must 

have received an award under a selected 

program within the last four years in 

order to receive this preference. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the priority for applicants that 

consolidate funds through a plan that 

complies with section 7116 of the ESEA 

or other authority. The commenter 

argued that this preference would 

unduly favor tribes, which manage 

multiple programs, as opposed to Indian 

organizations that have a more narrow 

focus. 

Discussion: The purpose of the 

priority in § 263.21(c)(3) for entities that 

have Department approval to 

consolidate funds is to encourage 

entities to take advantage of measures 

available to them to reduce duplication 

and bureaucracy, such as the authority 

under section 7116 of the ESEA for 

consolidation of funding designed to 

benefit Indian students. Even though we 

recognize that not every eligible entity 

will be able to take advantage of this 

priority, we seek to encourage this 

consolidation in order to increase the 

impact of Federal funding by reducing 

duplication of effort. 

Changes: None. 

Rural Priority (§ 263.21(c)(5)) 

Comments: We received several 

comments regarding the competitive 

preference priority for rural applicants. 

Some commenters commended our 

efforts to address the needs associated 

with rural poverty. However, other 

commenters stated that urban areas, like 

rural communities, face the challenges 

of poverty. Several commenters stated 

that projects serving urban communities 

and those serving rural communities 

should not be required to compete for 

funding. One commenter stated that 

more American Indian children live in 

urban than in rural areas. Several 

commenters argued that because the 

Department’s Impact Aid program 

compensates school districts in rural 

areas, such districts should not receive 

a priority under this program. A 

commenter also argued that the 

Department should allocate more funds 

to Impact Aid programs in order to 

address rural poverty, rather than 

providing a priority under this program. 

Discussion: Based on the Common 

Core of Data reported by SEAs in school 

year 2012–2013, nearly one-third of AI/ 

AN children are enrolled in rural school 

districts, whereas fewer than one-fourth 

of AI/AN children live in city school 

districts. Therefore, we believe that 

giving preference to rural districts will 

appropriately focus on the geographical 

areas with proportionately larger 

populations of Indian children. 

Furthermore, we believe that the 

solutions to educational challenges may 

be different in rural communities than 

in urban communities and that there is 

a need for solutions that are unique to 

rural communities. The scarcity of 

services and resources available in rural 

communities may require additional 

attention to address these needs. 

With regard to the argument 

concerning the Impact Aid program, we 

note that not all rural school districts 

receive Impact Aid funding, often 

because they do not meet the eligibility 

requirements. For example, compared to 

the more than 1,200 school districts that 

receive title VII formula grants for 

Indian students, fewer than 700 school 

districts receive Impact Aid funding for 

students residing on Indian lands. 

Moreover, Impact Aid funds are 

intended to replace lost tax revenues or 

increased expenses due to a Federal 

presence. The Impact Aid funds are 

considered general aid to the recipient 

school districts, and they may use the 

funds in whatever manner they choose 

in accordance with their local and State 

requirements. Thus a school district that 

receives Impact Aid may be as much in 

need of supplemental funding for Indian 

students through the Demonstration 

Grants program as any other school 

district. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: During our internal 

review of the proposed priority for rural 

applicants in § 263.21(c)(5), we 

reviewed again whether all BIE-funded 

schools serve rural locales and 

determined that not all BIE-funded 

schools serve those locales. 

Accordingly, we are revising the 

regulations to add a reference to the 

census locale codes as the indicator for 

BIE-funded schools that would be 

considered rural for purposes of this 

priority. 

Changes: We have revised the 

language in § 263.21(c)(5) with regard to 

BIE-funded schools to add that, to meet 

the rural priority, they must be in locale 

codes 42 or 43, as designated by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. 

Application Requirements (§ 263.22) 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the requirement in § 263.22(b)(2) that 

applicants submit a written agreement 

between the partners in a proposed 

project. 

Discussion: This is an application 

requirement that the Department may 

choose to use in any year of a new 

competition. For a priority such as the 

NYCP priority, we would select this 

application requirement because it 

would be essential for such a project to 

show agreement between the required 

partners. For other priorities, such as a 

priority for early learning projects, this 

requirement may not be appropriate. We 

will publish the selected application 

requirements in the notice inviting 

applications in the Federal Register. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: During our internal 

review of the proposed application 

requirements, we noted that the 

requirement to submit measureable 

objectives in § 263.22(b)(3) 

insufficiently communicated the 

expectation for the project to use the 

measureable objectives in evaluating the 

progress toward and success in meeting 

its goal or goals. Accordingly, we are 

revising the regulations to include a 

project evaluation plan. 

Changes: We have revised the 

language in § 263.22(b)(3) to clarify that 

the applicant must submit, in response 

to a notice inviting applications 

published in the Federal Register, an 

evaluation plan that includes 

measureable objectives. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22411 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final regulations 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that these final 

regulations are consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, or tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The 

potential costs associated with the 

priorities and requirements would be 

minimal while the potential benefits are 

significant. 

For Professional Development grants, 

applicants may anticipate costs in 

developing their applications and time 

spent reporting participant payback 

information in the Data Collection 

System (DCS). Additional costs would 

be associated with participant and 

employer information entered in the 

DCS, but program funds would pay for 

the costs of carrying out these activities. 

The benefits include enhancing 

project design and quality of services to 

better meet the program objectives, with 

the end result that more participants 

successfully complete their programs of 

study and obtain employment as 

teachers and administrators. 

For the Demonstration Grants 

program, applicants may anticipate 

costs associated with developing a 

partnership agreement and providing 

evidence of a local needs assessment or 

data analysis. These requirements 

should improve the quality of projects 

funded and conducted under these 

grants, and we believe the benefits of 

these improvements will outweigh the 

costs. Elsewhere in this section, under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Sections 263.6, 263.10, 263.11 and 

263.22 Indian Education Discretionary 

Grant Programs; Professional 

Development Program and 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children Program contain information 

collection requirements. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of 

Education has submitted a copy of these 

sections and related application forms 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for its review and approval. In 

accordance with the PRA, the OMB 

Control number associated with the 

Professional Development final 

regulations, related application forms, 

and ICRs for section 263.6, is OMB 

approved 1810–0580, and for sections 

263.10 and 263.11 it is OMB approved 

1810–0698. The Department also 

submitted to OMB for its review and 

approval a new Information Collection 

Request (ICR) for control number 1810— 

New Application for Demonstration 

Grants for Indian Children Program for 

section 263.22. An approved OMB 

control number will be assigned to this 

new ICR at the time of publication of the 

final rule. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

Intergovernmental Review 

These programs are subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

One of the objectives of the Executive 

order is to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for these programs. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In the NPRM we requested comments 

on whether the proposed regulations 

would require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Based on our review, we have 

determined that these final regulations 

do not require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers: 84.299A Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program; 84.299B 

Professional Development Program) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 263 

Business and industry, Colleges and 

universities, Elementary and secondary 

education, Grant programs—education, 

Grant program—Indians, Indians— 

education, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships. 

Dated: April 17, 2015. 

Deborah Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary of Education 

amends title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by revising part 263 to read 

as follows: 

PART 263—INDIAN EDUCATION 

DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS 

Subpart A—Professional Development 

Program 

Sec. 

263.1 What is the Professional 

Development Program? 

263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the 

Professional Development program? 

263.3 What definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program? 

263.4 What costs may a Professional 

Development program include? 

263.5 What priority is given to certain 

projects and applicants? 

263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate 

applications for the Professional 

Development program? 

263.7 What are the requirements for a leave 

of absence? 

263.8 What are the payback requirements? 

263.9 What are the requirements for 

payback deferral? 

263.10 What are the participant payback 

reporting requirements? 

263.11 What are the grantee post-award 

requirements? 

263.12 What are the program-specific 

requirements for continuation awards? 

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

otherwise noted. 

Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

Sec. 

263.20 What definitions apply to the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program? 

263.21 What priority is given to certain 

projects and applicants? 

263.22 What are the application 

requirements for these grants? 

263.23 What is the Federal requirement for 

Indian hiring preference that applies to 

these grants? 

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

otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—Professional Development 

Program 

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

otherwise noted. 

§ 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 (LEA) 

in consortium with an institution of 

higher education; 

(4) An Indian tribe or Indian 

organization in consortium with an 

institution of higher education; or 

(5) A Bureau of Indian Education 

(Bureau)-funded school. 

(b) Bureau-funded schools are eligible 

applicants for— 

(1) An in-service training program; 

and 

(2) A pre-service training program 

when the Bureau-funded school applies 

in consortium with an institution of 

higher education that is accredited to 

provide the coursework and level of 

degree required by the project. 

(c) Eligibility of an applicant requiring 

a consortium with any institution of 

higher education, including Indian 

institutions of higher education, 

requires that the institution of higher 

education be accredited to provide the 

coursework and level of degree required 

by the project. 

§ 263.3 What definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program? 

The following definitions apply to the 

Professional Development program: 

Bureau-funded school means a 

Bureau of Indian Education school, a 

contract or grant school, or a school for 

which assistance is provided under the 

Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988. 

Department means the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Dependent allowance means costs for 

the care of minor children under the age 

of 18 who reside with the training 

participant and for whom the 

participant has responsibility. The term 

does not include financial obligations 

for payment of child support required of 

the participant. 

Full course load means the number of 

credit hours that the institution requires 

of a full-time student. 

Full-time student means a student 

who— 

(1) Is a degree candidate for a 

baccalaureate or graduate degree; 

(2) Carries a full course load; and 

(3) Is not employed for more than 20 

hours a week. 

Good standing means a cumulative 

grade point average of at least 2.0 on a 

4.0 grade point scale in which failing 

grades are computed as part of the 

average, or another appropriate standard 

established by the institution. 

Graduate degree means a 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22413 

Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was 

in effect on October 19, 1994. 

Indian institution of higher education 

means an accredited college or 

university within the United States 

cited in section 532 of the Equity in 

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 

1994, any other institution that qualifies 

for funding under the Tribally 

Controlled College or University 

Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo 

Community College, authorized in the 

Navajo Community College Assistance 

Act of 1978. 

Indian organization means an 

organization that— 

(1) Is legally established— 

(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or 

in accordance with State or tribal law; 

and 

(ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of incorporation; 

(2) Includes in its purposes the 

promotion of the education of Indians; 

(3) Is controlled by a governing board, 

the majority of which is Indian; 

(4) If located on an Indian reservation, 

operates with the sanction or by charter 

of the governing body of that 

reservation; 

(5) Is neither an organization or 

subdivision of, nor under the direct 

control of, any institution of higher 

education; and 

(6) Is not an agency of State or local 

government. 

Induction services means services 

provided after participants complete 

their training program and during their 

first year of teaching. Induction services 

support and improve participants’ 

professional performance and promote 

their retention in the field of education 

and teaching. They include, at a 

minimum, these activities: 

(1) High-quality mentoring, coaching, 

and consultation services for the 

participant to improve performance; 

(2) Access to research materials and 

information on teaching and learning; 

(3) Assisting new teachers with use of 

technology in the classroom and use of 

data, particularly student achievement 

data, for classroom instruction; 

(4) Clear, timely and useful feedback 

on performance, provided in 

coordination with the participant’s 

supervisor; and 

(5) Periodic meetings or seminars for 

participants to enhance collaboration, 

feedback, and peer networking and 

support. 

In-service training means activities 

and opportunities designed to enhance 

the skills and abilities of individuals in 

their current areas of employment. 

Institution of higher education means 

an accredited college or university 

within the United States that awards a 

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 competitive 

preference priority to— 

(1) An application submitted by an 

Indian tribe, Indian organization, or an 

Indian institution of higher education 

that is eligible to participate in the 

Professional Development program. A 

consortium application of eligible 

entities that meets the requirements of 

34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and 

includes an Indian tribe, Indian 

organization, or Indian institution of 

higher education will be considered 

eligible to receive preference under this 

priority only if the lead applicant for the 

consortium is the Indian tribe, Indian 

organization, or Indian institution of 

higher education. In order to be 

considered a consortium application, 

the application must include the 

consortium agreement, signed by all 

parties; or 

(2) A consortium application of 

eligible entities that— 

(i) Meets the requirements of 34 CFR 

75.127 through 75.129 and includes an 

Indian tribe, Indian organization, or 

Indian institution of higher education; 

and 

(ii) Is not eligible to receive a 

preference under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

(b) The Secretary may annually 

establish as a priority any of the 

priorities listed in this paragraph. When 

inviting applications for a competition 

under the Professional Development 

program, the Secretary designates the 

type of each priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

The effect of each type of priority is 

described in 34 CFR 75.105. 

(1) Pre-Service training for teachers. 

The Secretary establishes a priority for 

projects that— 

(i) Provide support and training to 

Indian individuals to complete a preservice education program before the 

end of the award period that enables the 

individuals to meet the requirements for 

full State certification or licensure as a 

teacher through— 

(A) Training that leads to a degree in 

education; 

(B) For States allowing a degree in a 

specific subject area, training that leads 

to a degree in the subject area; or 

(C) Training in a current or new 

specialized teaching assignment that 

requires a degree and in which a 

documented teacher shortage exists; 

(ii) Provide one year of induction 

services, during the award period, to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

participants after graduation, 

certification, or licensure, while they are 

completing their first year of work in 

schools with significant Indian student 

populations; and 

(iii) Include goals for the— 

(A) Number of participants to be 

recruited each year; 

(B) Number of participants to 

continue in the project each year; 

(C) Number of participants to graduate 

each year; and 

(D) Number of participants to find 

qualifying jobs within twelve months of 

completion. 

(2) Pre-service administrator training. 

The Secretary establishes a priority for 

projects that— 

(i) Provide support and training to 

Indian individuals to complete a 

graduate degree in education 

administration that is provided before 

the end of the award period and that 

allows participants to meet the 

requirements for State certification or 

licensure as an education administrator; 

(ii) Provide one year of induction 

services, during the award period, to 

participants after graduation, 

certification, or licensure, while they are 

completing their first year of work as 

administrators in schools with 

significant Indian student populations; 

and 

(iii) Include goals for the— 

(A) Number of participants to be 

recruited each year; 

(B) Number of participants to 

continue in the project each year; 

(C) Number of participants to graduate 

each year; and 

(D) Number of participants to find 

qualifying jobs within twelve months of 

completion. 

(3) Letter of support. The Secretary 

establishes a priority for applicants that 

include a letter of support signed by the 

authorized representative of an LEA or 

Department of the Interior Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE)-funded school or 

other entity in the applicant’s service 

area that agrees to consider program 

graduates for qualifying employment. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442 and 7473) 

§ 263.6 How does the Secretary evaluate 

applications for the Professional 

Development program? 

The Secretary uses the procedures for 

establishing selection criteria and 

factors in 34 CFR 75.200 through 75.210 

to establish the criteria and factors used 

to evaluate applications submitted in a 

grant competition for the Professional 

Development program. The Secretary 

may also consider one or more of the 

criteria and factors listed in paragraphs 

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

applications. 

(a) Need for project. In determining 

the need for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project will prepare personnel in 

specific fields in which shortages have 

been demonstrated through a job market 

analysis. 

(2) The extent to which employment 

opportunities exist in the project’s 

service area, as demonstrated through a 

job market analysis. 

(b) Significance. In determining the 

significance of the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following: 

(1) The potential of the proposed 

project to develop effective strategies for 

teaching Indian students and improving 

Indian student achievement, as 

demonstrated by a plan to share 

findings gained from the proposed 

project with parties who could benefit 

from such findings, such as other 

institutions of higher education who are 

training teachers and administrators 

who will be serving Indian students. 

(2) The likelihood that the proposed 

project will build local capacity to 

provide, improve, or expand services 

that address the specific needs of Indian 

students. 

(c) Quality of the project design. The 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following factors in determining the 

quality of the design of the proposed 

project: 

(1) The extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are ambitious 

but also attainable and address— 

(i) The number of participants 

expected to be recruited in the project 

each year; 

(ii) The number of participants 

expected to continue in the project each 

year; 

(iii) The number of participants 

expected to graduate; and 

(iv) The number of participants 

expected to find qualifying jobs within 

twelve months of completion. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a plan for recruiting and 

selecting participants that ensures that 

program participants are likely to 

complete the program. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project will incorporate the needs of 

potential employers, as identified by a 

job market analysis, by establishing 

partnerships and relationships with 

appropriate entities (e.g., Bureau-funded 

schools, organizations providing 

educational services to Indian students, 

and LEAs) and developing programs 

that meet their employment needs. 

(d) Quality of project services. The 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following factors in determining the 

quality of project services: 

(1) The likelihood that the proposed 

project will provide participants with 

learning experiences that develop 

needed skills for successful teaching 

and/or administration in schools with 

significant Indian populations. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project prepares participants to adapt 

teaching and/or administrative practices 

to meet the breadth of Indian student 

needs. 

(3) The extent to which the applicant 

will provide job placement activities 

that reflect the findings of a job market 

analysis and needs of potential 

employers. 

(4) The extent to which the applicant 

will offer induction services that reflect 

the latest research on effective delivery 

of such services. 

(e) Quality of project personnel. The 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following factors when determining the 

quality of the personnel who will carry 

out the proposed project: 

(1) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

cultural competence, of the project 

director and the amount of time this 

individual will spend directly involved 

in the project. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

cultural competence, of key project 

personnel and the amount of time to be 

spent on the project and direct 

interactions with participants. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

cultural competence (as necessary), of 

project consultants or subcontractors, if 

any. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 1810– 

0580) 

§ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22415 

of higher education certifies that the 

training participant is eligible to resume 

his or her course of study at the end of 

the leave of absence. 

(d) A participant who is granted a 

leave of absence and does not return to 

his or her course of study by the end of 

the grant project period will be 

considered not to have completed the 

course of study for the purpose of 

project performance reporting. 

§ 263.8 What are the payback 

requirements? 

(a) General. All participants must— 

(1) Either perform work-related 

payback or provide cash reimbursement 

to the Department for the training 

received. It is the preference of the 

Department for participants to complete 

a work-related payback; 

(2) Sign an agreement, at the time of 

selection for training, that sets forth the 

payback requirements; and 

(3) Report employment verification in 

a manner specified by the Department 

or its designee. 

(b) Work-related payback. (1) 

Participants qualify for work-related 

payback if the work they are performing 

is in their field of study under the 

Professional Development program and 

benefits Indian people. Employment in 

a school that has a significant Indian 

student population qualifies as work 

that benefits Indian people. 

(2) The period of time required for a 

work-related payback is equivalent to 

the total period of time for which preservice or in-service training was 

actually received on a month-for-month 

basis under the Professional 

Development program. 

(3) Work-related payback is credited 

for the actual time the participant 

works, not for how the participant is 

paid (e.g., for work completed over 9 

months but paid over 12 months, the 

payback credit is 9 months). 

(4) For participants that initiate, but 

cannot complete, a work-related 

payback, the payback converts to a cash 

payback that is prorated based upon the 

amount of work-related payback 

completed. 

(c) Cash payback. (1) Participants who 

do not submit employment verification 

within twelve months of program exit or 

completion, or have not submitted 

employment verification for a twelvemonth period during a work-related 

payback, will automatically be referred 

for a cash payback unless the 

participant qualifies for a deferral as 

described in § 263.9. 

(2) The cash payback required shall be 

equivalent to the total amount of funds 

received and expended for training 

received under this program and may be 

prorated based on any approved workrelated service the participant performs. 

(3) Participants who are referred to 

cash payback may incur non-refundable 

penalty and administrative fees in 

addition to their total training costs and 

will incur interest charges starting the 

day of referral. 

(4) The cash payback obligation may 

only be discharged through bankruptcy 

if repaying the loan would cause the 

participant undue hardship as defined 

in 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). 

§ 263.9 What are the requirements for 

payback deferral? 

(a) Education deferral. If a participant 

completes or exits the Professional 

Development program, but plans to 

continue his or her education as a fulltime student without interruption, in a 

program leading to a degree at an 

accredited institution of higher 

education, the Secretary may defer the 

payback requirement until the 

participant has completed his or her 

educational program. 

(1) A request for a deferral must be 

submitted to the Secretary within 30 

days of completing or exiting the 

Professional Development program and 

must provide the following 

information— 

(i) The name of the accredited 

institution the student will be attending; 

(ii) A copy of the letter of admission 

from the institution; 

(iii) The degree being sought; and 

(iv) The projected date of completion. 

(2) If the Secretary approves the 

deferral of the payback requirement on 

the basis that a participant is continuing 

as a full-time student, the participant 

must submit to the Secretary a status 

report from an academic advisor or 

other authorized representative of the 

institution of higher education, showing 

verification of enrollment and status, 

after every grading period. 

(b) Military deferral. If a participant 

exits the Professional Development 

program because he or she is called or 

ordered to active duty status in 

connection with a war, military 

operation, or national emergency for 

more than 30 days as a member of a 

reserve component of the Armed Forces 

named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or as a 

member of the National Guard on fulltime National Guard duty, as defined in 

10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5), the Secretary may 

defer the payback requirement until the 

participant has completed his or her 

military service, for a period not to 

exceed 36 months. Requests for deferral 

must be submitted to the Secretary 

within 30 days of the earlier of receiving 

the call to military service or completing 

or exiting the Professional Development 

program, and must provide— 

(1) A written statement from the 

participant’s commanding or personnel 

officer certifying— 

(i) That the participant is on active 

duty in the Armed Forces of the United 

States; 

(ii) The date on which the 

participant’s service began; and 

(iii) The date on which the 

participant’s service is expected to end; 

or 

(2)(i) A true certified copy of the 

participant’s official military orders; and 

(ii) A copy of the participant’s 

military identification. 

§ 263.10 What are the participant payback 

reporting requirements? 

(a) Notice of intent. Participants must 

submit to the Secretary, within 30 days 

of completion of, or exit from, as 

applicable, their training program, a 

notice of intent to complete a workrelated or cash payback, or to continue 

in a degree program as a full-time 

student. 

(b) Work-related payback. (1) Starting 

within six months after exit from or 

completion of the program, participants 

must submit to the Secretary 

employment information, which 

includes information explaining how 

the employment is related to the 

training received and benefits Indian 

people. 

(2) Participants must submit an 

employment status report every six 

months beginning from the date the 

work-related service is to begin until the 

payback obligation has been fulfilled. 

(c) Cash payback. If a cash payback is 

to be made, the Department contacts the 

participant to establish an appropriate 

schedule for payments. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 1810– 

0698) 

§ 263.11 What are the grantee post-award 

requirements? 

(a) Prior to providing funds or 

services to a participant, the grantee 

must conduct a payback meeting with 

the participant to explain the costs of 

training and payback responsibilities 

following training. 

(b) The grantee must report to the 

Secretary all participant training and 

payback information in a manner 

specified by the Department or its 

designee. 

(c)(1) Grantees must obtain a signed 

payback agreement from each 

participant before the participant begins 

training. The agreement must include— 

(i) The estimated total training costs; 

(ii) The estimated length of training; 

and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Information documenting that the 

grantee held a payback meeting with the 

participant that meets the requirements 

of this section. 

(2) Grantees must submit a signed 

payback agreement to the Department 

within seven days of signing the 

payback agreement. 

(d) Grantees must conduct activities 

to assist participants in identifying and 

securing qualifying employment 

opportunities following completion of 

the program. 

(e)(1) Awards that are primarily for 

the benefit of Indians are subject to the 

provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education 

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

section requires that, to the greatest 

extent feasible, a grantee— 

(i) Give to Indians preferences and 

opportunities for training and 

employment in connection with the 

administration of the grant; and 

(ii) Give to Indian organizations and 

to Indian-owned economic enterprises, 

as defined in section 3 of the Indian 

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

1452(e)), preference in the award of 

contracts in connection with the 

administration of the grant. 

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (e), 

an Indian is a member of any federally 

recognized Indian tribe. 

(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b)) 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 1810– 

0698) 

§ 263.12 What are the program-specific 

requirements for continuation awards? 

(a) In making continuation awards, in 

addition to applying the criteria in 34 

CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers the 

extent to which a grantee has achieved 

its project goals to recruit, retain, 

graduate, and place in qualifying 

employment program participants. 

(b) The Secretary may reduce 

continuation awards, including the 

portion of awards that may be used for 

administrative costs, as well as student 

training costs, based on a grantee’s 

failure to achieve its project goals 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

Subpart B—Demonstration Grants for 

Indian Children Program 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise 

noted.) 

§ 263.20 What definitions apply to the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children 

program? 

The following definitions apply to the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program: 

Federally supported elementary or 

secondary school for Indian students 

means an elementary or secondary 

school that is operated or funded, 

through a contract or grant, by the 

Bureau of Indian Education. 

Indian means an individual who is— 

(1) A member of an Indian tribe or 

band, as membership is defined by the 

Indian tribe or band, including any tribe 

or band terminated since 1940, and any 

tribe or band recognized by the State in 

which the tribe or band resides; 

(2) A descendant of a parent or 

grandparent who meets the 

requirements described in paragraph (1) 

of this definition; 

(3) Considered by the Secretary of the 

Interior to be an Indian for any purpose; 

(4) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska 

Native; or 

(5) A member of an organized Indian 

group that received a grant under the 

Indian Education Act of 1988 as it was 

in effect on October 19, 1994. 

Indian institution of higher education 

means an accredited college or 

university within the United States 

cited in section 532 of the Equity in 

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 

1994, any other institution that qualifies 

for funding under the Tribally 

Controlled College or University 

Assistance Act of 1978, and the Navajo 

Community College, authorized in the 

Navajo Community College Assistance 

Act of 1978. 

Indian organization means an 

organization that— 

(1) Is legally established— 

(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or 

in accordance with State or tribal law; 

and 

(ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of incorporation; 

(2) Includes in its purposes the 

promotion of the education of Indians; 

(3) Is controlled by a governing board, 

the majority of which is Indian; 

(4) If located on an Indian reservation, 

operates with the sanction of or by 

charter from the governing body of that 

reservation; 

(5) Is neither an organization or 

subdivision of, nor under the direct 

control of, any institution of higher 

education; and 

(6) Is not an agency of State or local 

government. 

Native youth community project 

means a project that is— 

(1) Focused on a defined local 

geographic area; 

(2) Centered on the goal of ensuring 

that Indian students are prepared for 

college and careers; 

(3) Informed by evidence, which 

could be either a needs assessment 

conducted within the last three years or 

other data analysis, on— 

(i) The greatest barriers, both in and 

out of school, to the readiness of local 

Indian students for college and careers; 

(ii) Opportunities in the local 

community to support Indian students; 

and 

(iii) Existing local policies, programs, 

practices, service providers, and 

funding sources; 

(4) Focused on one or more barriers or 

opportunities with a community-based 

strategy or strategies and measurable 

objectives; 

(5) Designed and implemented 

through a partnership of various 

entities, which— 

(i) Must include— 

(A) One or more tribes or their tribal 

education agencies; and 

(B) One or more BIE-funded schools, 

one or more local educational agencies, 

or both; and 

(ii) May include other optional 

entities, including community-based 

organizations, national nonprofit 

organizations, and Alaska regional 

corporations; and 

(6) Led by an entity that— 

(i) Is eligible for a grant under the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program; and 

(ii) Demonstrates, or partners with an 

entity that demonstrates, the capacity to 

improve outcomes that are relevant to 

the project focus through experience 

with programs funded through other 

sources. 

Professional development activities 

means in-service training offered to 

enhance the skills and abilities of 

individuals that may be part of, but not 

exclusively, the activities provided in a 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program. 

§ 263.21 What priority is given to certain 

projects and applicants? 

(a) The Secretary gives priority to an 

application that presents a plan for 

combining two or more of the activities 

described in section 7121(c) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended, over a period 

of more than one year. 

(b) The Secretary gives a competitive 

preference priority to— 

(1) An application submitted by an 

Indian tribe, Indian organization, or 

Indian institution of higher education 

that is eligible to participate in the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian 

Children program. A group application 

submitted by a consortium that meets 

the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 

through 75.129 or submitted by a 

partnership is eligible to receive the 

preference only if the lead applicant is 

an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or 

Indian institution of higher education; 

or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22417 

1Program Suppliers and Joint Sports Claimants 

comprised the Copyright Owners while DIRECTV, 

Inc., DISH Network, LLC, and National 

Programming Service, LLC, comprised the Satellite 

Carriers. 

(2) A group application submitted by 

a consortium of eligible entities that 

meets the requirements of 34 CFR 

75.127 through 75.129 or submitted by 

a partnership if the consortium or 

partnership— 

(i) Includes an Indian tribe, Indian 

organization, or Indian institution of 

higher education; and 

(ii) Is not eligible to receive the 

preference in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

(c) The Secretary may give priority to 

an application that meets any of the 

priorities listed in this paragraph. When 

inviting applications for a competition 

under the Demonstration Grants 

program, the Secretary designates the 

type of each priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

through a notice inviting applications 

published in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority is 

described in 34 CFR 75.105. 

(1) Native youth community projects. 

(2) Projects in which the applicant or 

one of its partners has received a grant 

in the last four years under a federal 

program selected by the Secretary and 

announced in a notice inviting 

applications published in the Federal 

Register. 

(3) Projects in which the applicant has 

Department approval to consolidate 

funding through a plan that complies 

with section 7116 of the ESEA or other 

authority designated by the Secretary. 

(4) Projects that focus on a specific 

activity authorized in section 7121(c) of 

the ESEA as designated by the Secretary 

in the notice inviting applications. 

(5) Projects that include either— 

(i) An LEA that is eligible under the 

Small Rural School Achievement 

(SRSA) program or the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program 

authorized under title VI, part B of the 

ESEA; or 

(ii) A BIE-funded school that is 

located in an area designated with 

locale code of either 42 or 43 as 

designated by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

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

§ 263.22 What are the application 

requirements for these grants? 

(a) Each application must contain— 

(1) A description of how Indian tribes 

and parents of Indian children have 

been, and will be, involved in 

developing and implementing the 

proposed activities; 

(2) Assurances that the applicant will 

participate, at the request of the 

Secretary, in any national evaluation of 

this program; 

(3) Information demonstrating that the 

proposed project is based on scientific 

research, where applicable, or an 

existing program that has been modified 

to be culturally appropriate for Indian 

students; 

(4) A description of how the applicant 

will continue the proposed activities 

once the grant period is over; and 

(5) Other assurances and information 

as the Secretary may reasonably require. 

(b) The Secretary may require an 

applicant to satisfy any of the 

requirements in this paragraph. When 

inviting applications for a competition 

under the Demonstration Grants 

program, the Secretary establishes the 

application requirements through a 

notice inviting applications published 

in the Federal Register. If specified in 

the notice inviting applications, an 

applicant must submit— 

(1) Evidence, which could be either a 

needs assessment conducted within the 

last three years or other data analysis, 

of— 

(i) The greatest barriers, both in and 

out of school, to the readiness of local 

Indian students for college and careers; 

(ii) Opportunities in the local 

community to support Indian students; 

and 

(iii) Existing local policies, programs, 

practices, service providers, and 

funding sources. 

(2) A copy of an agreement signed by 

the partners in the proposed project, 

identifying the responsibilities of each 

partner in the project. The agreement 

can be either— 

(i) A consortium agreement that meets 

the requirements of 34 CFR 75.128, if 

each of the entities are eligible entities 

under this program; or 

(ii) Another form of partnership 

agreement, such as a memorandum of 

understanding or a memorandum of 

agreement, if not all the partners are 

eligible entities under this program. 

(3) A plan, which includes 

measurable objectives, to evaluate 

reaching the project goal or goals. 

§ 263.23 What is the Federal requirement 

for Indian hiring preference that applies to 

these grants? 

(a) Awards that are primarily for the 

benefit of Indians are subject to the 

provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education 

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

section requires that, to the greatest 

extent feasible, a grantee— 

(1) Give to Indians preferences and 

opportunities for training and 

employment in connection with the 

administration of the grant; and 

(2) Give to Indian organizations and to 

Indian-owned economic enterprises, as 

defined in section 3 of the Indian 

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

1452(e)), preference in the award of 

contracts in connection with the 

administration of the grant. 

(b) For purposes of this section, an 

Indian is a member of any federally 

recognized Indian tribe. 

(Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450b, 450e(b)). 

[FR Doc. 2015–09396 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 386 

[Docket No. 15–CRB–0009 SA (2015)] 

Cost of Living Adjustment to Satellite 

Carrier Compulsory License Royalty 

Rates 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

announce a cost of living adjustment 

(COLA) of 1.7% in the royalty rates 

satellite carriers pay for a compulsory 

license under the Copyright Act. The 

COLA is based on the change in the 

Consumer Price Index from October 

2013 to October 2014. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 22, 2015. 

Applicability Dates: These rates are 

applicable to the period January 1, 2015, 

through December 31, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LaKeshia Keys, CRB Program Specialist, 

by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or by 

email at crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

satellite carrier compulsory license 

establishes a statutory copyright 

licensing scheme for the retransmission 

of distant television programming by 

satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. 119. 

Congress created the license in 1988 and 

has reauthorized the license for 

additional five-year periods, most 

recently with the passage of the STELA 

Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law 

113–200. 

On August 31, 2010, the Copyright 

Royalty Judges (Judges) adopted rates 

for the section 119 compulsory license 

for the 2010–2014 term. See 75 FR 

53198. The rates were proposed by 

Copyright Owners and Satellite 

Carriers 1 and were unopposed. Id. 

Section 119(c)(2) of the Copyright Act 

provides that, effective January 1 of each 

year, the Judges shall adjust the royalty 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES