[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 97 (Friday, May 17, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43352-43357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-10870]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0065]


Research and Development Infrastructure Grant

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities, 
requirements, and definitions for use in the Research and Development 
Infrastructure (RDI) grant program. The Department may use one or more 
of these priorities, requirements, and definitions for competitions in 
fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We intend for these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions to help Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 
(TCCUs), and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) implement 
transformational investments in research infrastructure, including 
research productivity, faculty expertise, graduate programs, physical 
infrastructure, human capital development, and partnerships leading to 
increases in external funding.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 17, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation 
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, 
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted 
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period 
closes. To ensure the Department does 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 
``FAQ.''
    Note: The Department's policy is generally to make 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: Jason Cottrell, Ph.D., U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5C122, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7530. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. To ensure that 
your comments have maximum effect in developing the final priorities, 
requirements, and definitions, we urge you to clearly identify the 
specific section of the proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from these proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please 
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or 
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and 
efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions 
by accessing Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities, requirements, 
and definitions. 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.
    Purpose of Program: The RDI grant program is designed to provide 
HBCUs, TCCUs, and MSIs, including Asian American and Native American 
Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Alaska Native and 
Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH), Hispanic Serving 
Institutions (HSIs), Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions 
(NASNTIs), and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), and consortia 
led by an eligible institution of higher education, with funds to 
implement transformational investments in research infrastructure, 
including research productivity, faculty expertise, graduate programs, 
physical infrastructure, human capital development, and partnerships 
leading to increases in external and sustained funding.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.
    Background: The Nation's HBCUs, TCCUs, and MSIs provide access to a 
postsecondary education for many of the Nation's students of color. In 
the fall of 2022, the 96 Title-IV participating HBCUs (those that offer 
associate's and/or bachelor's degrees) enrolled 10 percent of all 
undergraduate Black or African American students and, between July 2021 
and June 2022, they conferred 9.3 percent of all associate's and 
bachelor's degrees to Black or African American students.\1\ In 2022-
2023, HSIs represented 20 percent of the Nation's institutions and 
educated 63 percent of the Nation's Hispanic

[[Page 43353]]

undergraduate students.\2\ In the Fall of 2021, the 35 Title IV degree-
granting TCCUs enrolled over 13,000, or 14 percent, of the Nation's 
American Indian and Alaska Native undergraduate students.\3\ Between 
July 2021 and June 2022, twenty of those TCCUs cumulatively conferred 
380 bachelor's degrees to American Indian and Alaska Native students, 
representing 87.4 percent of all bachelor's degrees conferred by 
TCCUs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 
Completions and Fall Enrollment components.
    \2\ Excelencia in Education. (2023). Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions (HSIs) Fact Sheet: 2022-23.
    \3\ U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS, Fall Enrollment 
component.
    \4\ U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS, Completions component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of their central role in educating students of color, it is 
important for HBCUs, TCCUs, and MSIs to have the resources they need to 
excel in research activity. Teaching and research go hand-in-hand in 
ensuring student \5\ and institutional success.\6\ Research activity 
can impact funding, faculty and student recruitment and retention, and 
student research opportunities, and promote diversity in graduate 
students and faculty at an institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NSSE. (n.d.). Digging Deeper Into the Quality of High-Impact 
Practices: HIPs Must be ``Done Well'' to Achieve Benefits.
    \6\ Rosowsky, D. (2022, March 2). The Role of Research at 
Universities: Why it Matters. In Forbes.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HBCUs, TCCUs, and many MSIs often lack the resources to plan, 
implement, and promote transformational investments in research 
infrastructure. According to a report from the Center for American 
Progress,\7\ ``Black researchers, inventors, and entrepreneurs have not 
had equitable access to capital to seed that innovation and research.'' 
A report on Federal funding by the National Institutes of Health found 
that Black researchers are less likely to get access to Federal 
funds.\8\ Another study on the Small Business Innovation Research 
program found that only 0.3 percent of grants went to teams with a 
Black principal investigator.\9\ HBCUs receive fewer research and 
development dollars than predominantly white institutions.\10\ Yet, 
according to the National Science Foundation, HBCUs account for seven 
of the top eight institutions that graduate the highest number of Black 
undergraduates who go on to earn doctorates in science and 
engineering.\11\ Further, HBCUs enroll only 9 percent of Black 
undergraduates in the United States, but they account for a much higher 
percentage of Black students who graduate with degrees in critical 
fields such as engineering, mathematics, and biological sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Center for American Progress. (2020). Redesigning Federal 
Funding of Research and Development.
    \8\ Ginther, D.K., Schaffer, W.T., Schnell, J., Masimore, B., 
Liu, F., Haak, L.L., & Kington R. Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research 
Awards. Science. 2011 Aug 19;333(6045):1015-9. doi: 10.1126/
science.1196783. PMID: 21852498; PMCID: PMC3412416.
    \9\ Nager, A., Hart, D., Ezell, S., & Atkinson, R.D. (2016). The 
Demographics of Innovation in the United States.
    \10\ Congressional Research Service. (2011). Federal Research 
and Development Funding at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities.
    \11\ Wondwossen, W. (2020). The Science Behind HBCU Success. 
National Science Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCCUs play a critical role in educating Native students and provide 
opportunities to produce research on American Indian issues from an 
American Indian and Alaska Native perspective.\12\ According to the 
National Academies, data provided to their committee looking at MSIs 
and STEM showed that 93 percent of the students enrolled in STEM 
programs at four-year TCCUs in the Fall of 2016 were Native American 
and Alaska Natives.\13\ However, TCCUs face obstacles in their efforts 
to sustain and implement extensive research activities. Administrations 
often have difficulty maintaining research activities due to the young 
nature of the institutions and their lack of research support 
offices.\14\ One study found that TCCUs' biggest obstacles in 
developing research activities are scheduling, infrastructure needs 
(i.e., lack of space, equipment, and literature), partnership 
challenges (i.e., lack of Tribal community knowledge), faculty 
capacity, and mistrust inside and outside of Tribal communities.\15\ 
Additionally, recent events like the COVID-19 pandemic have further 
demonstrated and exacerbated areas that need improvements to overcome 
barriers, including technology infrastructure, funding constraints 
(i.e., long-term funding),\16\ and isolation (i.e., remote areas).\17\ 
However, one study found that the potential benefits of research 
activities for faculty and student development--such as knowledge 
production and dissemination through conferences, collaborations, and 
presentations--may far outweigh the costs of overcoming these 
obstacles. For example, faculty have reported that research 
opportunities have allowed them to introduce to their classes new 
information that was not previously available. Additionally, many 
researchers emphasized that Tribal college research is ``more 
culturally sensitive and community-grounded, both in the methods and in 
the results.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Stull, G., Spyridakis, D., Gasman, M., Castro Samayoa, A., 
Booker, Y. (2015). Redefining Success: How Tribal Colleges and 
Universities Build Nations, Strengthen Sovereignty, and Persevere 
Through Challenges.
    \13\ Espinosa, L.L, McGuire, K., Miles Jackson, L. (2019). 
Minority Serving Institutions: Americans Underutilized Resource for 
Strengthening the STEM Workforce.
    \14\ Riley, E.T., Vadiee, N., & Ganguli, A. (2017). The 
Evolution of Research at Tribal Colleges and Universities. In Tribal 
College Journal, 29(2).
    \15\ Mortensen, M. (2001). Survey of Tribal Colleges Reveals 
Research's Benefits, Obstacles. In Tribal College Journal, 13(2).
    \16\ Redden, E. (2021, March 15). Trying Times for Tribal 
Colleges. In Inside Higher Ed.
    \17\ Stull, G., Spyridakis, D., Gasman, M., Castro Samayoa, A., 
& Booker, Y. (2015). Redefining Success: How Tribal Colleges and 
Universities Build Nations, Strengthen Sovereignty, and Persevere 
Through Challenges.
    \18\ Mortensen, M. (2001). Survey of Tribal Colleges Reveals 
Research's Benefits, Obstacles. In Tribal College Journal, 13(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Carnegie Classification System is one way of determining 
whether HBCUs and MSIs are lagging behind in research infrastructure. 
The American Council on Education (ACE) uses the Carnegie 
Classification System to categorize institutions based on function and 
mission. The Doctoral Universities have been categorized into three 
groups. These groupings are Doctoral Universities with Very High 
Research Activity (R1), Doctoral Universities with High Research 
Activity (R2), and Research Colleges and Universities (RCU). According 
to the most recent ACE Carnegie Classification 2019-20 dashboard,\19\ 
of the 146 Doctoral Universities with Very High Research Activity (R1) 
universities, there are no HBCUs and only 15 MSIs. Of the 133 Doctoral 
Universities with High Research Activity (R2) universities, only 11 are 
HBCUs and 23 are MSIs. ACE will change how these categories are defined 
in 2025. TCCUs have their own Carnegie Classification and are not 
included in the R1, R2, or RCU classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RDI grant program will support institutions in increasing their 
level of research activity in alignment with the Carnegie 
Classification designations. The first three proposed priorities would 
establish separate funding categories for each of the HBCU, TCCU, and 
MSI institutional types. This approach would enable the Department to 
meet the congressional intent regarding types of institutions to be 
served, as outlined in the explanatory statement accompanying Division 
D of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47) 
and to make awards to institutions under each of these categories.

[[Page 43354]]

    The fourth proposed priority would establish a priority for 
institutions with an enrollment of Pell Grant recipients that accounts 
for 50 percent or higher of their undergraduate student enrollment. The 
explanatory statement language for this program articulated the intent 
for these grants to provide ``transformational'' investments to improve 
institutions' research and development infrastructure. The Department 
believes these funds have the highest potential to transform an 
institution's Research and Development infrastructure if they are 
targeted to the institutions that enroll the highest percentage of 
students from low-income backgrounds. The Pell metric remains the best 
indicator of that.

Proposed Priorities

    We propose four priorities. We may use one or more of these 
priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Proposed Priority 1: Funding for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities' Research and Development Infrastructure.
    Projects proposed by HBCUs to implement high-quality transformative 
research capacity initiatives and designed to move the institution from 
R2 to R1, or from RCU to R2, research activity status.
    Proposed Priority 2: Funding for Tribally Controlled Colleges and 
Universities' Research and Development Infrastructure.
    Projects proposed by TCCUs to improve their research and 
development activities, including infrastructure, faculty development, 
and academic programs.
    Proposed Priority 3: Funding for Minority-Serving Institutions' 
Research and Development Infrastructure.
    Projects proposed by MSIs to implement high-quality transformative 
research capacity initiatives and designed to move the institution from 
R2 to R1, or from RCU to R2, research activity status.
    Proposed Priority 4: MSI Pell Grant Percentage.
    Projects proposed by lead applicants with an enrollment of Pell 
Grant recipients that accounts for 50 percent or higher of their 
undergraduate student enrollment, as measured by the Department using 
the most recent data available in the Integrated Postsecondary 
Education Data System (IPEDS).

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate 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 follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    Proposed Requirements: The Department proposes the following 
program requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of 
these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect and 
may limit the application of these requirements to one or more of the 
proposed priorities. The Department will announce within the notice 
inviting applications the final requirements that will apply to a 
particular grant competition, and whether those requirements will apply 
to grantees applying under each proposed priority for this program.
    Proposed Requirement-1--Use of Funds.
    Background: RDI is funded under the Fund for the Improvement of 
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) authority and was first authorized in 
FY 2023 as described in the explanatory statement accompanying Division 
H of the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328). As 
noted elsewhere in this document, Congress directed the Department 
through the explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the 
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47) to 
provide continued funding for this program. In order to fully implement 
this program in the manner that Congress has directed, the Department 
proposes the following Uses of Funds to provide specificity about the 
allowable activities to applicants and grantees under this program. The 
Department believes each of these activities would support the overall 
goal of the RDI program.
    Requirement: Grantees must conduct one or more of the following 
activities:
    (1) Providing for the improvement of infrastructure existing on the 
date of the grant award, including deferred maintenance, or the 
establishment of new physical infrastructure, including instructional 
program spaces, laboratories, and research facilities relating to the 
fields of science, technology, engineering, the arts, mathematics, 
health, agriculture, education, medicine, law, and other disciplines.
    (2) Hiring and retaining faculty, students, research-related staff, 
or other personnel, including research personnel skilled in operating, 
using, or applying technology, equipment, or devices to conduct or 
support research.
    (3) Supporting research internships and fellowships for students, 
including undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral positions, which 
may include providing direct student financial assistance and other 
supports to such students.
    (4) Creating new, or expanding existing, academic positions, 
including internships, fellowships, and post-doctoral positions, in 
fields of research for which research and development infrastructure 
funds have been awarded to the grantee under this program.
    (5) Creating and supporting inter- and intra-institutional research 
centers (including formal and informal communities of practice) in 
fields of research for which research and development infrastructure 
funds have been awarded to the grantee under this program, including 
hiring staff, purchasing supplies and equipment, and funding travel to 
relevant conferences and seminars to support the work of such centers.
    (6) Building new institutional support structures and departments 
that help faculty learn about, and increase faculty and student access 
to, Federal research and development grant funds and non-Federal 
academic research grants.
    (7) Building data and collaboration infrastructure so that early 
findings and research can be securely shared to facilitate peer review 
and other appropriate collaboration.
    (8) Providing programs of study and courses in fields of research 
for which research and development infrastructure funds have been 
awarded to the grantee under this program.
    (9) Paying operating and administrative expenses for, and 
coordinating project partnerships with members of, the consortium on 
behalf of which the eligible institution has received a grant under 
this program, provided that grantees may not pay for the expenses of 
any R1 institutions that are members of the consortia.

[[Page 43355]]

    (10) Installing or extending the life and usability of basic 
systems and components of campus facilities related to research, 
including high-speed broadband internet infrastructure sufficient to 
support digital and technology-based learning.
    (11) Expanding, remodeling, renovating, or altering biomedical and 
behavioral research facilities existing on the date of the grant award 
that received support under section 404I of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 283k).
    (12) Acquiring and installing furniture, fixtures, and 
instructional research-related equipment and technology for academic 
instruction in campus facilities in fields of research for which 
research and development infrastructure funds have been awarded to the 
grantee under this program.
    (13) Providing increased funding to programs that support research 
and development at the eligible institution that are funded by the 
National Institutes of Health, including through their Path to 
Excellence and Innovation program.
    (14) Faculty professional development.
    (15) Planning purposes.
    Proposed Requirement 2--Indirect Cost Rate Information.
    Background: In order to maximize the grant resources that support 
direct costs, the Department is proposing to limit indirect costs to 8 
percent of a modified total direct cost base.
    Requirement: A grantee's indirect cost reimbursement is limited to 
8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. For more information 
regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, 
please see www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    Proposed Requirement 3--Matching Requirements and Exceptions.
    Background: The Department proposes to require that grantees 
provide a 1:1 match of non-Federal to Federal contributions. This 
proposed requirement is intended to leverage the Federal funds to 
double the impact of overall project plans, to promote the 
sustainability of the activities funded under this program, and to 
ensure alignment of such activities to the institution's strategic 
plan. The Department also proposes waiver authority so that 
institutions located in areas with high rates of poverty, that enroll 
high numbers of students from low-income backgrounds, or that are 
otherwise under resourced such that complying with this matching 
requirement would be overly burdensome, can still benefit from this 
program.
    Requirement: Grantees must provide a 1:1 match, which can include 
in-kind donations.
    Waiver Authority: The Secretary may waive the matching requirement 
on a case-by-case basis upon showing any of the following exceptional 
circumstances: (i) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a 
program to serve an area with high rates of poverty in the lead 
applicant's geographic location, defined as a Census tract, a set of 
contiguous Census tracts, an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma 
Tribal Statistical Area (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska 
Native Village Statistical Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation 
Area, Native Hawaiian Homeland Area, or other Tribal land or county 
that has a poverty rate of at least 25 percent as determined every 5 
years using American Community Survey 5-Year data; (ii) Serving a 
significant population of students from low-income backgrounds at the 
lead applicant location, defined as at least 50 percent (or the 
eligibility threshold for the appropriate institutional sector 
available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html#app) of degree-seeking enrolled students receiving 
need-based grant aid under Title IV of the HEA; (iii) Significant 
economic hardship as demonstrated by low average educational and 
general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student at 
the lead applicant institution, in comparison with the average 
educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent 
undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar instruction 
without need of a waiver, as determined by the Secretary in accordance 
with the annual process for designation of eligible Titles III and V 
institutions.; or (iv) Information that otherwise demonstrates a 
commitment to the long-term sustainability of the applicant's projects, 
such as evidence of a consortium relationship with an R1 institution, a 
State bond, State matching, planning documents such as a campus plan, 
multi-year faculty hiring plan, support of industry, Federal grants 
received, or a demonstration of institutional commitment that may 
include commitment from the institution's board.
    Proposed Requirement 4: Limitation on Grant Awards.
    Background: The Department proposes to allow the Secretary, in a 
given RDI competition, to limit eligibility for new awards to 
applicants without current active grants under this program. This 
proposed requirement is designed to increase the number of eligible 
institutions that can benefit from this program. The Department also 
believes that it would be inappropriate to allow institutions to have 
multiple grants concurrently under this program because the objective 
of this program is inherently an institution-wide objective. 
Furthermore, since many of the activities that institutions can 
undertake under this program are inherently institution-wide 
activities, this proposed requirement would remove the risk that these 
funds could support duplicative activities.
    Requirement: The Department will only make awards to applicants 
that are not the individual or lead applicant in a current active grant 
from the RDI grant program.
    Proposed Definitions: The Department proposes the following 
definitions for this program. We may apply these definitions in any 
year in which this program is in effect. The proposed definitions for 
R1, R2, and RCU would align with the ACE Carnegie Classifications that 
will be in effect starting in 2025. The proposed definition of 
``underrepresented students'' is intended for use in the performance 
measures the Department uses to evaluate the success of the RDI grant 
program, for example, a performance measure based on the number of 
doctorates conferred to underrepresented students annually.
    Research 1: Very High Research Spending and Doctorate Production 
(R1) means that an institution has spent at least $50 million in total 
research and development (R&D) in a year, as reported to the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) Higher Education Research and Development 
(HERD) Survey, and awarded at least 70 research/scholarship doctorates 
in a year, as reported to IPEDS.
    Research 2: High Research Spending and Doctorate Production (R2) 
means that an institution has spent at least $5 million in total R&D in 
a year, as reported to the NSF HERD Survey, and awarded at least 20 
research/scholarship doctorates in a year, as reported to IPEDS. It 
does not include institutions designated R1.
    Research Colleges and Universities (RCU) means that an institution 
has spent at least $2.5 million in total R&D in a year, as reported to 
the NSF HERD Survey. It does not include institutions designated R1 or 
R2.
    Historically Black College or University means an institution that 
meets the eligibility requirements under section 322(2) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
    Minority-Serving Institution means an institution that is eligible 
to receive

[[Page 43356]]

assistance under sections 317 through 320 of part A of title III, or 
under title V of the HEA.
    Tribal College or University has the meaning ascribed it in section 
316(b)(3) of the HEA.
    Underrepresented students means students enrolled in postsecondary, 
career, or technical education who are in one or more of the following 
subgroups: (i) A student from a low-income background. (ii) A student 
who is American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic 
or Latino, Native Hawaiian, and/or Pacific Islander.

Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions

    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions in a document in the Federal Register. We will determine 
the final priorities, requirements, and definitions after considering 
public comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions and other information available to the Department. This 
document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, 
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting 
applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
and definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal 
Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set 
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. 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 priorities, requirements, and 
definitions 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 this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in 
Executive Order 13563.
    The potential costs associated with these priorities, requirements, 
and definitions would be minimal, while the potential benefits are 
significant. The Department believes that this proposed regulatory 
action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities. 
Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on 
applicants by this regulatory action would be limited to paperwork 
burden related to preparing an application. The potential benefits of 
implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred by 
applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with 
the application would be paid for with program funds. For these 
reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation would not 
be burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.
    We also have 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 these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

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 priorities, requirements, and definitions 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions clearly stated?
     Do the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions 
contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their 
clarity?

[[Page 43357]]

     Does the format of the proposed priorities, requirements, 
and definitions (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
     Would the proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but 
shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions easier to 
understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
    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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are institutions that meet the eligibility requirements 
described in 316 through 320 of part A of title III, part B of title 
III, or title V of the HEA. The Secretary believes that the costs 
imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing 
an application and that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred 
by applicants.
    Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the 
proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no 
burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the 
program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for RDI grant 
program funds, an eligible applicant would evaluate the requirements of 
preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them 
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving an RDI program 
grant. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they 
determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a 
grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through 
its development of an application, such as the use of that application 
to seek funding from other sources to address the institution's 
research and development infrastructure needs.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions do not 
contain any information collection requirements.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    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 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.

Nasser Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2024-10870 Filed 5-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P