Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional Development Program

Cited as:84 FR 54806
Court:Education Department
Publication Date:11 Oct 2019
Record Number:2019-22075
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 198 (Friday, October 11, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2019)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 54806-54816]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2019-22075]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
                34 CFR Part 263
                RIN 1810-AB54
                [Docket ID ED-2019-OESE-0068]
                Indian Education Discretionary Grant Programs; Professional
                Development Program
                AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
                Education.
                ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations that govern
                the Professional Development program, authorized under title VI of the
                Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to
                implement changes to title VI resulting from the enactment of the Every
                Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). These proposed regulations would update,
                clarify, and improve the current regulations. These regulations pertain
                to Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.299B.
                DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 12, 2019.
                ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
                or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
                accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after
                the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
                please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
                Docket ID at the top of your comments.
                     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
                submit your comments electronically. Information on using
                Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
                submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
                under ``Help.''
                     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The
                Department strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments
                electronically. However, if you mail or deliver your comments about
                these proposed regulations, address them to Angela Hernandez-Marshall,
                U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W113,
                Washington, DC 20202-6110. Telephone: (202) 205-1909.
                    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
                received from members of the public available for public viewing in
                their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
                www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
                in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
                available.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hernandez-Marshall, U.S.
                Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W113,
                Washington, DC 20202-6110. Telephone: (202) 205-1909. Email:
                [email protected].
                    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
                telephone (TTY), call (800) 877-8339.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
                these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
                effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify
                clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
                that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
                the same order as the proposed regulations.
                    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
                requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their
                overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
                from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways
                we could reduce potential costs or increase
                [[Page 54807]]
                potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient
                administration of the Department's programs and activities.
                    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
                comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
                You may also inspect the comments in person at 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
                Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
                through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. To schedule a time
                to inspect comments, please contact one of the persons listed under FOR
                FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
                    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
                Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
                accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
                needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
                public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
                schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
                aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
                CONTACT.
                Background
                    The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations in 34 CFR part 263
                that govern the Professional Development program to clarify certain
                statutory changes made to section 6122 of the ESEA by the ESSA and to
                better enable the Department and grantees to meet the objectives of the
                program. We also propose changes that are technical only and therefore
                will not be addressed in the preamble. For example, we will replace the
                term ``Indian institution of higher education'' with ``Tribal College
                or University (TCU)'' throughout in order to align with the
                reauthorized statute.
                    The primary statutory change that we are addressing in this notice
                of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is the requirement that, after completing
                their training as teachers or administrators, program participants must
                work in local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve a high proportion
                of Indian students. We propose a definition of ``LEA that serves a high
                proportion of Indian students'' to provide clarity to applicants,
                participants, and prospective employers.
                    We also propose adding new priorities that would allow work by
                administrators in Tribal educational agencies (TEAs), or in entities
                starting a new school to serve Indian students, to serve as qualifying
                employment. We also propose to revise priorities and definitions to
                allow projects to support Native American language certification for
                teachers in States that offer this option. These changes would allow
                for greater flexibility for grantees to recruit and retain Indian
                teachers and administrators to serve in settings desired by Tribes
                while meeting the statutory requirements.
                Tribal Consultation
                    The Department held a blended in-person and virtual Tribal
                Consultation on November 15, 2018, to solicit input on the future
                direction of the Professional Development program, and continued to
                solicit Tribal comment through December 31, 2018, via its
                [email protected] mailbox. The Department also solicited Tribal
                input by issuing several email messages to Tribal leaders from each of
                the federally recognized Indian Tribes, all TCU presidents, current
                grantees under ESEA Title VI formula and discretionary grant programs,
                and external stakeholders. The topics on which we sought input included
                how we should define ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian
                students''; whether we should establish a priority for training Indian
                administrators to start new Indian-serving charter schools; and ways to
                encourage opportunities for administrators to work with, and in, TEAs.
                Most respondents were in favor of the Department defining the term
                ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students'' in order to
                allow as many LEAs as possible to serve as a qualifying job placement
                for successful participants, and the Department concurs and proposes to
                do so in these regulations. The Department had asked for specific input
                on using Indian student population percentage thresholds to define
                ``high proportion'' (e.g. LEAs with 50 percent Indian student
                population); Tribal consultation participants were generally opposed to
                using any specific percentages in the definition. Several participants
                and subsequent submitted written comments to the Department stated that
                the options proposed by the Department would result in only schools on
                reservations qualifying for the program, and would be a disadvantage to
                urban or off-reservation schools that serve a large number but not a
                high percentage of Indian students relative to the districtwide student
                population. Many Tribal consultation participants expressed support for
                administrator opportunities to work in an entity starting a new charter
                school or transitioning a school to Tribally controlled, and to work
                for TEAs under this program.
                Significant Proposed Regulations
                    We group major issues according to subject, with the appropriate
                sections of the proposed regulations referenced in parentheses. We
                discuss other substantive issues under the sections of the proposed
                regulations to which they pertain.
                Qualifying Job Placements That Satisfy the Service Payback Obligation
                    Statute: Section 6122(e)(2) of the ESEA requires applicants to
                describe how they will use grant funds to train teachers or principals
                to work in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students.
                Similarly, the participant service payback requirement described in
                section 6122(h) requires work that benefits Indian students in an LEA
                that serves a high proportion of Indian students. The statute does not
                define the phrase ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian
                students.''
                    Current Regulations: In Sec.  263.5(b)(1)(ii), the priority for
                pre-service teacher training requires grantees to provide induction
                services in schools with a ``significant'' Indian student population.
                The selection criterion in Sec.  263.6(d)(1) addresses the likelihood
                that the proposed project will prepare students for successful teaching
                and/or administration in schools with significant Indian populations.
                    The selection criteria in Sec.  263.6(a), (c), and (d) (``need for
                project,'' ``quality of project design,'' and ``quality of project
                services'') do not reference the type of schools that can qualify for
                service payback. Under Sec.  263.8(b), work in a school with a
                significant Indian student population satisfies the requirement that
                work-related payback benefits Indian people. The current regulations do
                not define the phrase ``schools with a significant Indian student
                population.'' The current regulations also make multiple references
                (Sec. Sec.  263.4, 263.5 and 263.11) to the terms ``qualifying job[s]''
                and ``qualifying employment'' but do not define these terms.
                    Proposed Regulations: We propose to establish a definition of ``LEA
                that serves a high proportion of Indian students'' in Sec.  263.3 as an
                LEA with either (1) a high proportion of Indian students in the LEA as
                compared to other LEAs in the State; or (2) a high proportion of Indian
                students in the school in which the participant works, even if the LEA
                as a whole does not have a high proportion of Indian students. The
                definition would make clear that ``LEA'' includes a BIE-funded school
                for this purpose.
                    We propose to establish a definition of ``qualifying employment''
                as
                [[Page 54808]]
                employment in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
                We also propose revising the definition of ``induction services'' to
                require that such services be provided in an LEA that serves a high
                proportion of Indian students; and revising the priorities in
                renumbered Sec.  263.6(b)(1) and (2) to specify that induction services
                are to be provided to participants completing work-related payback in
                an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
                    We propose adding an application requirement in new 263.5 stating
                that applicants must submit one or more letters of support from LEAs
                that serve a high proportion of Indian students.
                    In the selection criterion renumbered 263.7(a), ``Need for
                project,'' we propose adding a selection factor that would ask
                applicants to describe the extent to which employment opportunities
                exist in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students in the
                project service area. We also incorporate the new defined term ``LEAs
                that serve a high proportion of Indian students'' in the selection
                factor for ``quality of project design'' in renumbered 263.7(c)(3).
                    Finally, in renumbered Sec.  263.12(c)(1) we propose adding an
                element to the required payback agreement that participants must sign,
                clarifying that in order to qualify for the work payback requirement,
                the job must be in an LEA ``that serves a high proportion of Indian
                students.''
                    Reasons: First, we propose to define ``LEA that serves a high
                proportion of Indian students'' broadly in order to maximize the number
                of LEAs that would qualify under this definition. This proposed
                definition, informed by Tribal Consultation feedback, would allow us to
                consider whether an LEA's student body population has a high proportion
                relative to the Indian population in the grantee's State, as opposed to
                a nationwide comparison using a strict percentage. It would also permit
                a comparison of whether the school in which the participant works has a
                high percentage of Indian students compared to other LEAs in the State.
                This approach would mitigate the potential for perceived
                ``competition'' between urban and rural areas, address the need for
                serving Indian students in States where few to no schools have high
                percentages of Indian student populations, and would still adhere to
                the intent of this requirement.
                    In addition, we propose to add a definition of ``qualifying
                employment'' because the current regulations use different terms, such
                as ``qualifying employment'' and ``qualifying jobs,'' but do not define
                either. Defining this term with reference to the new statutory
                requirement of working in an LEA with a high proportion of Indian
                students would provide clarity for grantees, participants, and
                employers regarding which jobs will qualify for the work payback
                requirement. For example, under 263.12(d) (as proposed to be renumbered
                in this NPRM), grantees continue to have an obligation to assist
                participants in obtaining qualifying employment (consistent with the
                definition); but the definition would remove any ambiguity as to which
                job placements meet the definition of ``LEA that serves a high
                proportion of Indian students.''
                    The proposed revision to the definition of ``induction services,''
                which would require that such services be provided in an LEA that
                serves a high proportion of Indian students, would align that
                definition to the statutory requirement that applicants describe how
                they will support the preparation and professional development of
                teachers or principals in LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian
                students. We propose revising the priorities in renumbered Sec.
                263.6(b)(1) and (2) to replace the current language concerning
                induction services for participants ``in schools with significant
                Indian populations'' with the new statutory ``high proportion''
                language.
                    We propose adding the application requirement in Sec.  263.5 for
                letters of support from LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian
                students to help ensure that participants have actual opportunities for
                jobs following their training, at schools that will qualify for the
                work payback obligation. The letters of support would need to include
                evidence, such as a school, district and State report card that
                includes demographic information, that the LEA meets the definition of
                ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.'' We invite
                comment on what type of evidence the Department should accept, and what
                type of evidence is available to LEAs.
                    The proposed new element in the payback agreement (in proposed
                Sec.  263.12(c)) would clarify in writing for participants that to
                satisfy the work payback requirement, they must work in an ``LEA that
                serves a high proportion of Indian students.'' This will increase the
                potential for participants to successfully meet the service payback
                requirement.
                Native American Language Certificate
                    Statute: The ESEA, both prior to and after the ESSA amendments,
                does not specify whether an applicant IHE for this program must be a
                degree-granting institution. Although section 6122 of the ESEA does not
                define the phrase ``institution of higher education,'' section 8101 of
                the ESEA, which is also applicable to this program, contains a
                definition of ``institution of higher education.'' The statute does not
                define the term ``full-time student.''
                    Current Regulations: Under Sec.  263.2(c), eligibility of an
                applicant requiring a consortium with any IHE, including a TCU,
                requires that the IHE be accredited to provide the coursework and level
                of degree required by the project. In Sec.  263.3, the current
                definition of ``full-time student'' requires that a student be a
                candidate for a baccalaureate or graduate degree. The definition of
                ``institution of higher education'' requires that the institution be
                accredited to award a baccalaureate degree or higher. ``Pre-service
                training'' is defined as training that results in licensing or
                certification in a field requiring at least a baccalaureate degree. In
                the priority for pre-service teacher training in Sec.  263.5(b)(1), the
                training must be in a subject area that requires a degree.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec.  263.2(c),
                regarding eligibility of an applicant requiring a consortium with any
                IHE, would be broadened to include IHEs that are accredited to provide
                the coursework and level of degree or Native American language
                certificate required by the project.
                    In the definition of ``full-time student'' in Sec.  263.3, the
                proposed regulations would add the option that students who are
                candidates for a Native American language certificate can also qualify
                as ``full-time students,'' for an applicant proposing a program that
                awards a certificate of Native American language instruction rather
                than a baccalaureate degree. For the definition of ``institution of
                higher education,'' the proposed regulations would use the statutory
                definition from ESEA section 8101. For consistency with that
                definition, the list of eligible entities in Sec.  263.2(a)(1) would be
                revised to use the word ``or'' between the phrase ``institution of
                higher education'' and the phrase ``TCU,'' rather than the existing
                word ``including.'' Conforming changes would be made to add ``or TCU''
                following the phrase ``institution of higher education'' in paragraphs
                (a)(2) through (a)(4) of Sec.  263.2, and in the definition of ``Indian
                organization'' in Sec.  263.3.
                    The proposed regulations would add to the definition of ``pre-
                service training'' the option that the training could be either in a
                field that requires at least a baccalaureate degree, or
                [[Page 54809]]
                certification in Native American language instruction.
                    The proposed regulations would also revise the priority for pre-
                service teacher training in Sec.  263.6(b)(1)(i), as renumbered, to add
                the option of training in the field of Native American language
                instruction. Finally, the proposed regulations would add definitions of
                the terms ``Native American'' and ``Native American language.''
                    Reasons: The Department has learned, both from current grantees and
                through Tribal consultation, that there is interest in providing
                training for teachers of Native American languages, and that there is a
                shortage of qualified teachers in this field. We understand that a
                number of States now have a certificate or license for teaching Native
                American languages, and that such certificates generally do not require
                a bachelor's degree. This enables non-traditional students such as
                Tribal elders to obtain the needed qualifications to teach Native
                American languages in the public schools. These proposed changes to the
                regulations would provide more flexibility to grantees, better
                recognize Tribal sovereignty, and help fulfill the Department's
                obligation under the Native American Languages Act (NALA) to support
                efforts to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of
                Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American
                languages.
                    The proposed regulations contain several changes to facilitate this
                flexibility in the Professional Development program. First, the
                proposed regulations would change the definition of ``IHE'' to the
                general definition in title VIII of the ESEA, which in turn uses the
                definition in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA).
                This proposed definition would eliminate the prior requirement in the
                regulatory definition for this program that the institution must award
                a baccalaureate degree or higher. The proposed definition would enable
                an IHE that meets the HEA definition but does not award a baccalaureate
                degree, such as a community college that has a Native American language
                certificate or licensing program, to be eligible for this program. For
                consistency with that definition, the list of eligible entities in
                section 263.2(a) would be revised to use the word ``or'' between the
                phrase ``IHE'' and the phrase ``TCU,'' because a TCU is generally not
                included under the ESEA definition of IHE, which requires State
                authorization of the entity. We understand that TCUs are generally
                authorized by the Tribe and not the State.
                    Next, the proposed regulations would revise the definitions of
                ``full-time student'' and ``pre-service training'' to add the option of
                a Native American language certificate that does not require a
                baccalaureate degree. The proposed definition of ``Native American
                language'' is taken from section 8101 of the ESEA, which references
                section 103 of NALA (25 U.S.C. 2902). We have used the language from
                NALA in the definition for user convenience. The proposed definition of
                ``Native American'' is also from section 8101 of the ESEA, which
                references section 103 of NALA (25 U.S.C. 2902), which defines ``Native
                American'' as an ``Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific
                Islander.'' The NALA definition of ``Indian'' further references the
                ESEA title VI definition of that term (ESEA section 6151). We propose a
                definition that is a user-friendly compilation of these three discrete
                sources; the proposed definition is also the same definition used in
                the ESEA Title I regulations in 34 CFR 200.6(k).
                    Finally, the priority for pre-service teacher training in section
                263.6(b)(1)(i), as renumbered, would add the option of training in the
                field of Native American language instruction.
                Application Requirements
                Section 263.5 What are the application requirements?
                    Statute: Under section 6122 of the ESEA, the Secretary requires
                applicants to describe how they will recruit qualified Indian
                individuals, such as students who may not be of traditional college
                age, to become teachers, principals, or school leaders; use funds made
                available under the grant to support the recruitment, preparation, and
                professional development of Indian teachers or principals in LEAs that
                serve a high proportion of Indian students; and assist participants in
                meeting the payback obligation requirement.
                    Current Regulations: The current regulations do not include a
                specific section that describes application requirements. However,
                under the current section 263.5 there is a priority for applicants that
                include a letter of support from an LEA or BIE-funded school that
                agrees to consider program graduates for qualifying employment.
                    Proposed Regulations: We plan to include this list of statutory
                requirements under a new section 263.5. In addition, we propose that
                the current priority for applicants that include a letter of support
                now be made an application requirement.
                    Reasons: First, adding a new section that describes the application
                requirements provides applicants with one place to reference multiple
                requirements. Second, we are proposing adding to the statutorily-
                mandated requirements a requirement that applicants include a letter of
                support from prospective LEAs, including BIE-funded schools, that meet
                the qualifying employment definition, in order to increase applicants'
                understanding, at the outset, of their statutory obligation to support
                participants' placement in qualifying employment, should they receive a
                grant. One reason we are proposing this change is that, when we
                included a competitive preference priority for letters of support in
                each of the last two grant competition cycles in Fiscal Years (FYs)
                2016 and 2018, the competitive preference priority points did not help
                to discern which applications were of the highest quality. Second, in
                the past, applicants have provided letters from LEAs that may no longer
                be considered locations for qualifying employment under the new
                definition of ``LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students.''
                Requiring, rather than providing an incentive for, applicants to
                provide letters of support from LEAs that serve a high proportion of
                Indian students would help to ensure that participants will find
                qualifying employment.
                Number of Years of Induction Services
                    Statute: Section 6122(d) of the ESEA permits grant funds to be used
                for teacher induction services during the first three years of
                teachers' employment.
                    Current Regulations: The definition of ``induction services'' in
                current section 263.3 includes only services provided during the first
                year of teaching. The priorities for pre-service teacher training and
                pre-service administrator training in current 263.5(b)(1)(ii) and
                (b)(2)(ii) also require one year of induction services.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed definition of ``induction
                services'' would include services provided during a teacher's first one
                to three years of qualifying employment; the Department would announce
                the number of years of required induction services in the applicable
                notice inviting applications. The allowable costs provision in proposed
                Sec.  263.4(c)(4) would include the new statutory language concerning
                induction services but would indicate that induction services can be
                provided for up to the first three years of a teacher's employment.
                Similarly, the priorities for pre-service teacher training and pre-
                service administrator training in 263.6(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii), as
                renumbered, would include language stating that induction services are
                to be
                [[Page 54810]]
                provided for the period of time stated in the applicable notice
                inviting applications.
                    Reasons: The proposed change would provide flexibility in tailoring
                the length of induction services to the total grant period. Prior to
                the ESSA amendments, the Department had awarded four-year grants, and
                grantees were required to provide induction services to graduated and
                employed participants during the fourth year of the grant. In the
                latest competition, for FY 2018, the Department awarded five-year
                grants because the statute now authorizes grants for an initial period
                of up to three years, with possible renewal for up to two years for
                grantees that are achieving the objectives of the grant. In the FY 2018
                competition, the Department required three years of training and two
                years of induction services, assuming the grantee makes substantial
                progress towards the objectives. A longer period of induction services
                should provide more support to new teachers and lead to fewer
                participants leaving the teaching profession.
                Priority for Administrator Training for Work in TEAs
                    Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
                priorities for the Indian Education Professional Development Program
                under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
                    Current Regulations: The current regulations in section 263.5
                contain one priority required by statute, and three regulatory
                priorities. There is no priority for administrator training for work in
                TEAs. Section 263.3 does not include a definition of TEA. Current Sec.
                263.8(b) provides the requirements for work-related payback but does
                not address TEAs.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in section 263.6(b),
                as renumbered, would include a priority for training administrators to
                work for TEAs. Under this priority, grantees would be required to
                provide opportunities for participants to work with or for TEAs during
                the training period, and to make efforts to place participants in
                administrator jobs in TEAs following program completion.
                    The proposed regulations would also add a definition of TEA to the
                definitions in Sec.  263.3. In addition, the proposed regulations would
                include a note following Sec.  263.9(b), as renumbered, regarding work-
                related payback, stating that for grants that provide administrator
                training, if a graduate works for a TEA that provides administrative
                control or direction of public schools (e.g., BIE-funded schools or
                charter schools), such employment would satisfy the requirements for
                work payback.
                    Reasons: We understand from Tribal consultation that many Tribes
                have established or are seeking greater control over education. In some
                cases, TEAs are in control of BIE-funded schools or Tribally funded
                schools. Under the current regulations, it has been unclear to grantees
                whether graduates are permitted to work in a TEA to satisfy the work
                payback obligation, or whether they must obtain employment in a State-
                funded LEA. The proposed change would provide clarity on this issue,
                increase flexibility for applicants interested in administrator
                training, and better recognize Tribal sovereignty.
                    The proposed definition of TEA in Sec.  263.3 is taken from the
                definition in ESEA section 6132. The proposed note following Sec.
                263.9(b), as renumbered, would clarify that graduates who work for a
                TEA would satisfy the work payback obligation, if the TEA has
                administrative control or direction of schools. This clarification is
                needed due to the statutory requirement that work payback take place in
                an LEA; the note would explain that the work payback requirement is
                satisfied if the graduate is employed by a TEA that satisfies the
                requirements in the statutory definition of LEA in ESEA section 8101.
                Priority for Administrator Training for School Start-Ups
                    Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
                priorities for the Indian Education Professional Development Program
                under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
                    Current Regulations: The current regulations in section 263.5
                contain one priority required by statute, and three regulatory
                priorities. There is no priority for administrator training for school
                start-ups.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in section 263.6(b),
                as renumbered, would include a priority for training administrators to
                start new schools that serve Indian students, such as charter schools
                or schools transitioning from BIE-operated to Tribally controlled.
                Grantees would be required to make efforts to place participants in
                administrator jobs working for an entity planning to start a school to
                serve Indian students or transitioning an existing school to one under
                Tribal control.
                    Reasons: We heard through Tribal consultation that Tribes are
                interested in opportunities to train administrators in ways to expand
                choice in Indian country, including specifically how to establish new
                charter schools, or how to change a BIE-funded school that is currently
                BIE-operated to one that is Tribally operated. A priority for such
                training would enable the Department to provide a competitive advantage
                to projects that include this focus. Because of the statutory
                requirement for work payback, a project doing such training would need
                to ensure that its graduates obtain jobs in which they would be
                administering schools, as opposed to merely planning for future
                administration. Thus, if the graduate worked for an entity such as a
                TEA that is planning to open a new school, that person would also need
                to be in a position that involves current school administration duties.
                The proposed change would provide more flexibility to applicants
                interested in administrator training and would better recognize Tribal
                sovereignty.
                Section 263.7 How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
                Professional Development Program?
                    Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
                selection criteria for the Indian Education Professional Development
                program under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
                    Current Regulations: Under the current section 263.6 there are five
                criteria, each with corresponding factors specific to the Professional
                Development program, including need for the project, significance,
                quality of the project design, quality of project services, and quality
                of project personnel.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add under the
                selection criterion (d), ``Quality of Project Design,'' a selection
                factor regarding the extent to which the proposed project has a plan
                for recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may
                not be of traditional college age, that ensures that program
                participants are likely to complete the program. The proposed
                regulations in Sec.  263.7(d), as renumbered, would also include a
                sixth factor to address the extent to which the applicant will assist
                participants in meeting the service obligation requirements.
                    Reasons: One of the statutory changes made by ESSA is to add the
                requirement that applicants describe how they will recruit and select
                participants. Adding this as a selection criterion will help ensure
                that projects include participants who are likely to complete the
                program. Another statutory change requires applicants to describe how
                they will assist participants in meeting the work payback obligation.
                By including this as
                [[Page 54811]]
                a selection factor, we can encourage applicants to increase their focus
                on placement in qualifying employment. Our review of current and past
                projects shows that participants' ability to meet the service
                obligation can be better supported when grantees give more time and
                attention to planning for how they will support participants' placement
                in jobs that meet the service obligation requirements.
                Other Significant Issues
                Bureau-Funded School
                    Statute: Section 6122 of the ESEA includes Bureau-funded schools,
                as defined in section 1146 of the Educational Amendments of 1978, among
                eligible entities of the Professional Development program.
                    Current Regulations: Section 263.3 defines Bureau-funded school as
                a Bureau of Indian Education school, a contract or grant school, or a
                school that receives support under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act
                of 1988. Section 263.2 also uses the term in the list of eligible
                entities. However, the priority described in Sec.  263.5(b)(3) makes
                reference to a BIE-funded school.
                    Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulations would change the term
                from Bureau-funded school to BIE-funded school throughout the
                regulations and would change the term to BIE-funded school in the
                definitions in Sec.  263.3, but the content of the definition would
                remain unchanged.
                    Reasons: Using the term BIE-funded school throughout the
                regulations would ensure consistency. And although the statute refers
                to Bureau-funded school, the term ``BIE-funded school'' is a term more
                commonly used and more familiar to grantees, participants and other
                stakeholders.
                Quality of Project Personnel--Project Consultants
                    Statute: The Secretary has the authority to establish regulatory
                selection criteria for the Indian Education Professional Development
                program under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
                    Current Regulations: Section 263.6(e)(3) is a selection factor that
                considers the qualifications of subcontractors and consultants who may
                be included in the proposed project.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would eliminate this
                selection factor.
                    Reasons: Most applicants do not identify subcontractors and
                consultants who are not already in the role of project director or key
                personnel. Consequently, any applicant whose proposed project does not
                include subcontractors or consultants cannot receive peer review points
                because they lack this non-required element. Eliminating this
                evaluation factor would eliminate this negative impact on such
                projects.
                Payback Agreement Submission
                    Statute: The Secretary has the authority to regulate post-award
                requirements that apply to the Professional Development program under
                20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
                    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  263.11(c)(1) requires that
                grantees obtain a signed payback agreement from each participant and
                submit it to the Department within seven days of signing.
                    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would extend the
                timeframe for grantees to submit the signed payback agreement to the
                Department to 30 days.
                    Reasons: Based on current grantee feedback, participant orientation
                and related administrative processes generally take more than seven
                days due to grantees holding related activities. Addressing all related
                administrative duties for a part-time staff has proven challenging.
                Based on Department analysis of submission times over the last four
                years, 30 days is more reasonable and is adequate for the time period
                needed for grantees to adhere to this requirement.
                Technical Changes
                    The ESSA amendments to Title VII of the ESEA also necessitate
                multiple technical changes to the current program regulations. As a
                result, this NPRM includes the following technical changes:
                    (1) In Sec.  263.1, we add language regarding the purposes of the
                program as stated in ESEA section 6122(a)(2).
                    (2) In Sec. Sec.  263.2(a), 263.3, and 263.6, we reflect changes to
                the eligible entities listed in ESEA section 6122(b)(1). We remove
                references to ``Indian institution of higher education'' and replace
                them with ``TCU'' throughout. In section 263.2(a) we also add the
                statutory language requiring BIE-funded schools to apply in consortium
                with at least one TCU, where feasible.
                    (3) We revise the definition of induction services in Sec.  263.3,
                and we add to section 263.4 new paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5), to
                reflect authorized activities described in ESEA section 6122(d)(1)(B).
                    (4) We add new Sec.  263.5 to reflect application requirements
                described in ESEA section 6122(e). We also revise the selection
                criteria in redesignated Sec.  263.7 to add the element regarding
                recruiting participants, from ESEA section 6122(e)(1), to redesignated
                Sec.  263.7(c)(2) and (d)(5), and we add the element regarding helping
                participants with payback, from ESEA section 6122(e)(3), to
                redesignated Sec.  263.7(d)(6).
                    (5) We revise Sec. Sec.  263.1-263.3, and redesignated Sec. Sec.
                263.6, 263.7, 263.9, 263.11, and 263.12 to reflect the service
                obligation described in ESEA section 6122(h)(1)(A)(ii), which requires
                that work must benefit Indian students in an LEA that serves a high
                proportion of Indian students.
                Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
                Regulatory Impact Analysis
                    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
                regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
                requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
                of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
                defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
                result in a rule that may--
                    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
                or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
                jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
                Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
                as an ``economically significant'' rule);
                    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
                action taken or planned by another agency;
                    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
                user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
                thereof; or
                    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
                mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
                Executive order.
                    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
                action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
                12866.
                    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the
                Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates
                that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and
                that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
                deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs
                associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the
                elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The
                proposed regulations are not a significant regulatory action.
                [[Page 54812]]
                Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
                    We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
                13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
                structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
                Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
                13563 requires that an agency--
                    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
                that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
                and costs are difficult to quantify);
                    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
                consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
                account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
                cumulative regulations;
                    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
                those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
                economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
                advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
                    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
                than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
                adopt; and
                    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
                regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
                marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
                information that enables the public to make choices.
                    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
                available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
                benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
                Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
                techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
                that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
                behavioral changes.''
                    We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned
                determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In
                choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
                approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
                follows, the Department believes that these proposed regulations are
                consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
                    We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
                unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
                exercise of their governmental functions.
                    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
                assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
                qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated
                with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory
                requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
                administering the Department's programs and activities.
                    Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The potential costs associated
                with the proposed regulatory changes would be minimal, while there
                would be greater potential benefits.
                    For Professional Development grants, applicants may anticipate
                minimal additional costs in developing their applications due to the
                new required letter of support that the applicant must obtain from an
                LEA in proposed section 263.5, estimated at two hours of additional
                work. We anticipate no additional time spent reporting participant
                payback information in the Professional Development Program Data
                Collection System (PDPDCS) and the costs of carrying out these
                activities would continue to be paid for with program funds.
                    The benefits include enhancing project design and quality of
                services to better meet the objectives of the programs with the result
                being more participants successfully completing their programs of study
                and obtaining employment as teachers and administrators. Elsewhere in
                this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and
                explain burdens specifically associated with information collection
                requirements.
                Clarity of the Regulations
                    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
                Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
                regulations that are easy to understand.
                    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
                regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
                as the following:
                     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
                stated?
                     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
                other wording that interferes with their clarity?
                     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
                order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
                their clarity?
                     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
                we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
                preceded by the symbol ``Sec.  '' and a numbered heading; for example,
                Sec.  263.3 What definitions apply to the Professional Development
                program?)
                     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
                making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
                     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
                easier to understand?
                    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
                these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
                in the ADDRESSES section.
                Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
                    The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
                have a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small
                entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
                proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
                owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
                have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
                defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
                and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
                defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government
                overseeing a population below 50,000.
                    The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
                regulations are LEAs, institutions of higher education, TCUs, tribes,
                and tribally operated schools receiving Federal funds under this
                program. The proposed regulations would not have a significant economic
                impact on the small entities affected because the regulations do not
                impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
                supervision. The proposed regulations would impose minimal requirements
                to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds, including reporting
                of participant payback information. We note that grantees that would be
                subject to the minimal requirements that these proposed regulations
                would impose would be able to meet the costs of compliance using
                Federal funds provided through the Indian Education Discretionary Grant
                programs.
                    However, the Secretary specifically invites comments on the effects
                of the proposed regulations on small entities, and on whether there may
                be further opportunities to reduce any potential adverse impact or
                increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed regulations
                without impeding the effective and efficient administration of Indian
                Education Discretionary Grant
                [[Page 54813]]
                programs. Commenters are requested to describe the nature of any effect
                and provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to
                the extent possible.
                Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
                burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
                with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
                of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public
                understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
                provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
                (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
                clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
                of collection requirements on respondents.
                    Proposed Sec. Sec.  263.5, 263.6, and 263.7, as renumbered, contain
                information collection requirements for the program application
                package, and proposed Sec. Sec.  263.12 and 263.13 contain information
                collection requirements renewed by OMB on August 12, 2019. Table A-1
                illustrates the status of both the current and proposed collections
                associated with this program:
                                               TABLE A-1--PD Program Information Collection Status
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Proposed action
                   OMB Control No.         Relevant          Expiration      Current burden    Proposed burden     under final
                                         regulations                          (total hours)     (total hours)         rules
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                1810-0580...........  Proposed Sec.      June 30, 2021....  Applicants:       0...............  Discontinue this
                                       Sec.   263.5,                         1,500.                              collection and
                                       263.6, and 263.7.                                                         use 1894-0006
                1894-0006...........  Proposed Sec.      January 31, 2021.  0...............  Applicants:       Use this
                                       Sec.   263.5,                                           1,500.            collection.
                                       263.6, and 263.7.
                1810-0698...........  Proposed Sec.      August 31, 2022..  Grantees: 2,040.  Grantees: 2,040.  Use this
                                       Sec.   263.12.                       Participants:     Participants:      collection.
                                                                             660.              660.
                                                                            Employers: 304..  Employers: 304..
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    As a result of the proposed revisions to Sec. Sec.  263.5, 263.6,
                and 263.7, we would transfer the grant application package information
                collection burden from 1810-0580 to 1894-0006, resulting in
                discontinuation of 1810-0580.
                    Proposed Sec.  263.12 contains information collection requirements
                that will continue in order to:
                     Fulfill six Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
                performance measures and reporting requirements;
                     Ensure that participants fulfill the statutory payback
                requirements; and
                     Collect budget and project-specific performance
                information from grantees for project monitoring.
                    This information collection was recently renewed by OMB. We expect
                that the proposed amendments will slightly change, but not increase,
                the current OMB approved data collection burden. Because the changes
                impact only information collection requirements for post-award
                induction activities that would not occur prior to FY 2022, and in
                order to mitigate revisions due to any possible changes to the proposed
                regulations, we plan to submit the revised information collection for
                OMB approval once final regulations are published.
                    If your comments relate to the ICR for these proposed regulations,
                please specify the Docket ID number and indicate ``Information
                Collection Comments'' on the top of your comments.
                    Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal
                mail or delivery related to the information collection requirements
                should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection
                Clearance Program, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW,
                room 9086, Washington, DC 20202.
                    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
                Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
                objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
                partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
                on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
                and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
                    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
                actions for this program.
                Federalism
                    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely
                input by State and local elected officials in the development of
                regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism
                implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
                relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
                distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
                government. These proposed regulations may have federalism
                implications. We encourage State and local elected officials to review
                and provide comments on these proposed regulations.
                Assessment of Educational Impact
                    In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
                Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
                whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of
                information that any other agency or authority of the United States
                gathers or makes available.
                    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
                document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
                audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR
                FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
                    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
                document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
                access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
                Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
                document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
                in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
                (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
                available free at the site.
                    You may also access documents of the Department published in the
                Federal Register by using the article search feature at
                www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
                feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
                by the Department.
                (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.299B Professional
                Development Program.)
                List of Subjects in 34 CFR part 263
                    Business and industry, College and universities, Elementary and
                secondary education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
                Indians, Indians--education, Reporting and recordkeeping
                [[Page 54814]]
                requirements, Scholarships and fellowships.
                    Dated: October 4, 2019.
                Frank Brogan,
                Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
                    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
                Education proposes to amend part 263 of title 34 of the Code of the
                Federal Regulations as follows:
                PART 263--INDIAN EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS
                0
                1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
                    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441, unless otherwise noted.
                0
                2. Section 263.1 is amended by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
                0
                b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
                0
                c. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
                    The revisions and addition read as follows:
                Sec.  263.1  What is the Professional Development program?
                    (a) * * *
                    (2) Provide pre- and in-service training and support to qualified
                Indian individuals to become effective teachers, principals, other
                school leaders, administrators, teacher aides, paraprofessionals,
                counselors, social workers, and specialized instructional support
                personnel;
                    (3) Improve the skills of qualified Indian individuals who serve in
                the education field; and
                    (4) Develop and implement initiatives to promote retention of
                effective teachers, principals, and school leaders who have a record of
                success in helping low-achieving Indian students improve their academic
                achievement, outcomes, and preparation for postsecondary education or
                employment.
                    (b) * * *
                    (1) Perform work related to the training received under the program
                and that benefits Indian students in a local educational agency that
                serves a high proportion of Indian students, or to repay all or a
                prorated part of the assistance received under the program; and
                * * * * *
                0
                3. Section 263.2 is amended by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
                0
                b. Adding the words ``or a TCU'' after the phrase ``institution of
                higher education'' in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4);
                0
                c. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
                0
                d. Removing the phrase ``Bureau-funded'' and adding in its place the
                phrase ``BIE-funded'' in paragraph (b);
                0
                e. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
                0
                f. Revising paragraph (c).
                    The revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  263.2   Who is eligible to apply under the Professional
                Development program?
                    (a) * * *
                    (1) An institution of higher education, or a Tribal College or
                University (TCU);
                * * * * *
                    (5) A Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded school in consortium
                with at least one TCU, where feasible.
                    (b) * * *
                    (2) A pre-service training program when the BIE-funded school
                applies in consortium with an institution of higher education that
                meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
                    (c) Eligibility of an applicant that is an institution of higher
                education or a TCU, or an applicant requiring a consortium with any
                institution of higher education or TCU, requires that the institution
                of higher education or TCU be accredited to provide the coursework and
                level of degree or Native American language certificate required by the
                project.
                0
                4. Section 263.3 is amended by:
                0
                a. Removing the words ``Bureau-funded'' in the definition of ``Bureau-
                funded school'' and adding, in their place, the words ``BIE-funded'';
                0
                b. Revising the definition of ``Full-time student'';
                0
                c. Removing the definition of ``Indian institution of higher
                education'';
                0
                d. In paragraph (5) of the definition of ``Indian organization'',
                adding the phrase ``or TCU'' after the phrase ``any institution of
                higher education'';
                0
                e. Revising the definitions of ``Induction services'' and ``Institution
                of higher education'';
                0
                 f. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Local educational
                agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of Indian students'',
                ``Native American'', and ``Native American language'';
                0
                g. Adding, in the definition of ``Pre-service training'' the words ``,
                or licensing or certification in the field of Native American language
                instruction'' after the word ``degree''; and
                0
                h. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``qualifying
                employment'', ``Tribal College or University (TCU)'', and ``Tribal
                education agency''.
                    The additions and revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  263.3  What definitions apply to the Professional Development
                program?
                * * * * *
                    Full-time student means a student who--
                    (1) Is a candidate for a baccalaureate degree, graduate degree, or
                Native American language certificate, as appropriate for the project;
                    (2) Carries a full course load; and
                    (3) Is not employed for more than 20 hours a week.
                * * * * *
                    Induction services means services provided--
                    (1)(i) By educators, local traditional leaders, or cultural
                experts;
                    (ii) For the one, two, or three years of qualifying employment, as
                designated by the Department in the notice inviting applications; and
                    (iii) In local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve a high
                proportion of Indian students;
                    (2) To support and improve participants' professional performance
                and promote their retention in the field of education and teaching, and
                that include, at a minimum, these activities:
                    (i) High-quality mentoring, coaching, and consultation services for
                the participant to improve performance;
                    (ii) Access to research materials and information on teaching and
                learning;
                    (iii) Assisting new teachers with use of technology in the
                classroom and use of data, particularly student achievement data, for
                classroom instruction;
                    (iv) Clear, timely, and useful feedback on performance, provided in
                coordination with the participant's supervisor; and
                    (v) Periodic meetings or seminars for participants to enhance
                collaboration, feedback, and peer networking and support.
                * * * * *
                    Institution of higher education (IHE) has the meaning given that
                term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
                1001(a)).
                    Local educational agency (LEA) that serves a high proportion of
                Indian students means--
                    (1) A local educational agency, including a BIE-funded school, that
                serves a high proportion of Indian students in the LEA as compared to
                other LEAs in the State; or
                    (2) A local educational agency, including a BIE-funded school, that
                serves a high proportion of Indian students in the school in which the
                participant works compared to other LEAs in the State, even if the LEA
                as a whole in which the participant works does not have a high
                proportion of Indian students compared to other LEAs in the State.
                    Native American means ``Indian'' as defined in section 6151(3) of
                the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which includes Alaska
                Native and members of Federally-recognized or
                [[Page 54815]]
                State-recognized Tribes; Native Hawaiian; and Native American Pacific
                Islander.
                    Native American language means the historical, traditional
                languages spoken by Native Americans.
                * * * * *
                    Qualifying employment means employment in a local educational
                agency that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
                * * * * *
                    Tribal college or university (TCU) has the meaning given that term
                in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
                1059c(b)).
                    Tribal educational agency (TEA) means the agency, department, or
                instrumentality of an Indian Tribe that is primarily responsible for
                supporting Tribal students' elementary and secondary education.
                * * * * *
                0
                5. Section 263.4 is amended by:
                0
                a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(2).
                0
                b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (c)(3) and adding a
                ``;''; and
                0
                c. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5).
                    The additions read as follows:
                Sec.  263.4   What costs may a Professional Development program
                include?
                * * * * *
                    (c) * * *
                    (4) Teacher mentoring programs, professional guidance, and
                instructional support provided by educators, local traditional leaders,
                or cultural experts, as appropriate for teachers for up to their first
                three years of employment as teachers; and
                    (5) Programs designed to train traditional leaders and cultural
                experts to assist participants with relevant Native language and
                cultural mentoring, guidance, and support.
                * * * * *
                Sec. Sec.  263.5 through 263.12  [Redesignated]
                0
                6. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  263.5 through 263.12 as Sec. Sec.  263.6
                through 263.13.
                0
                7. Add a new Sec.  263.5 to read as follows:
                Sec.  263.5  What are the application requirements?
                    An applicant must--
                    (a) Describe how it will--
                    (1) Recruit qualified Indian individuals, such as students who may
                not be of traditional college age, to become teachers, principals, or
                school leaders;
                    (2) Use funds made available under the grant to support the
                recruitment, preparation, and professional development of Indian
                teachers or principals in local educational agencies that serve a high
                proportion of Indian students; and
                    (3) Assist participants in meeting the payback requirements under
                Sec.  263.9(b);
                    (b) Submit one or more letters of support from LEAs that serve a
                high proportion of Indian students. Each letter must include--
                    (1) A statement that the LEA agrees to consider program graduates
                for employment;
                    (2) Evidence that the LEA meets the definition of ``LEA that serves
                a high proportion of Indian students''; and
                    (3) The signature of an authorized representative of the LEA;
                    (c) If applying as an Indian organization, demonstrate that the
                entity meets the definition of ``Indian organization'' in these
                regulations; and
                    (d) Comply with any other requirements in the application package.
                0
                8. Newly redesignated Sec.  263.6 is amended by:
                0
                 a. Removing the phrase ``Indian institution of higher education'' and
                adding, in its place, the phrase ``TCU'' in paragraphs (a)(1) and
                (a)(2)(i).
                0
                 b. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B).
                0
                c. Adding the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C).
                0
                d. Adding new paragraph (b)(1)(i)(D).
                0
                e. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
                0
                f. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(D), remove the word ``jobs'' and add in its
                place ``employment''.
                0
                 g. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
                0
                 h. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D), remove the word ``jobs'' and add in
                its place ``employment''.
                0
                i. Revising paragraph (b)(3).
                0
                j. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4).
                    The addition and revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  263.6  What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?
                * * * * *
                    (b) * * *
                    (1) * * *
                    (i) * * *
                    (D) Training in the field of Native American language instruction;
                    (ii) Provide induction services, during the award period, to
                participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, for the
                period of time designated by the Department in the notice inviting
                applications, while participants are completing their work-related
                payback in schools in local educational agencies that serve a high
                proportion of Indian students; and
                    (2) * * *
                    (ii) Provide induction services, during the award period, to
                participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, for the
                period of time designated by the Department in the notice inviting
                applications while administrators are completing their work-related
                payback as administrators in local educational agencies that serve a
                high proportion of Indian students; and
                * * * * *
                    (3) Pre-service administrator training for work in Tribal
                educational agencies. The Secretary establishes a priority for projects
                that--
                    (i) Meet the requirements of the pre-service administrator training
                priority in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
                    (ii) Include training on working for a TEA, and opportunities for
                participants to work with or for TEAs during the training period; and
                    (iii) Include efforts by the applicant to place participants in
                administrator jobs in TEAs following program completion.
                    (4) Pre-service administrator training for school start-ups. The
                Secretary establishes a priority for projects that--
                    (i) Meet the requirements of the pre-service administrator training
                priority in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
                    (ii) Include training to support the capacity of school leaders to
                start new schools that serve Indian students, such as charter schools
                or schools transitioning from BIE-operated to Tribally controlled; and
                    (iii) Include efforts by the applicant to place participants in
                administrator jobs with entities planning to start or transition a
                school to serve Indian students.
                * * * * *
                0
                9. Newly redesignated Sec.  263.7 is amended by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
                0
                b. Removing the word ``jobs'' in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and adding in its
                place ``employment''.
                0
                 c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3).
                0
                 d. Revising paragraph (d)(1) by removing the phrase ``schools with
                significant Indian populations'' and adding in its place the phrase
                ``LEAs that serve a high proportion of Indian students''.
                0
                e. Adding to the end of paragraph (d)(3) the phrase ``and that offer
                qualifying employment opportunities''.
                0
                f. Adding new paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6).
                0
                g. Removing paragraph (e)(3).
                    The additions and revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  263.7   How does the Secretary evaluate applications for the
                Professional Development program?
                    (a) * * *
                    (2) The extent to which LEAs with qualifying employment
                opportunities
                [[Page 54816]]
                exist in the project's service area, as demonstrated through a job
                market analysis, and have provided a letter of support for the project.
                * * * * *
                    (c) * * *
                    (2) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for
                recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may not
                be of traditional college age, 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 LEAs that serve a
                high proportion of Indian students and developing programs that meet
                their employment needs.
                    (d) * * *
                    (5) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for
                recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may not
                be of traditional college age, that ensures that the program
                participants are likely to complete the program.
                    (6) The extent to which the applicant will assist participants in
                meeting the service obligation requirements.
                * * * * *
                0
                10. Newly redesignated Sec.  263.9 is amended by:
                0
                a. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``people'' and adding, in its
                place, the word ``students'' and removing the words ``school that has a
                significant Indian population'' and adding, in their place, the words
                ``LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students''.
                0
                b. Adding a note at the end of this section.
                    The addition reads as follows:
                Sec.  263.9   What are the payback requirements?
                * * * * *
                    Note to Sec.  263.9: For grants that provide administrator
                training, a participant who has received administrator training and
                subsequently works for a Tribal educational agency that provides
                administrative control or direction of public schools (e.g., BIE-funded
                schools or charter schools) satisfies the requirements of paragraph
                (b)(1) of this section.
                Sec.  263.11  [Amended]
                0
                11. Newly redesignated Sec.  263.11 is amended by removing the word
                ``people'' in paragraph (b)(1) and replacing it with the phrase
                ``students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian
                students''.
                0
                12. Newly redesignated Sec.  263.12 is amended by
                0
                a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
                0
                b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1)(iii) as paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and
                adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(iii).
                0
                 c. Removing in paragraph (c)(2) the word ``seven'' and adding, in its
                place, the word ``thirty''.
                    The addition reads as follows:
                Sec.  263.12  What are the grantee post-award requirements?
                * * * * *
                    (c) * * *
                    (1) * * *
                    (iii) A statement explaining that work must be in an ``LEA that
                serves a high proportion of Indian students,'' and the regulatory
                definition of that phrase; and
                * * * * *
                [FR Doc. 2019-22075 Filed 10-10-19; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P