[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60844-60853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 263

[Docket ID ED-2024-OESE-0008]
RIN 1810-AB70


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, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 
number 84.299B, authorized under title VI of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to establish 
priorities, requirements, and a definition for the program, including a 
priority for teacher retention projects.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 28, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation or 
cannot otherwise submit your comments via regulations.gov, please 
contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. 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 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 Donna Sabis-Burns, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B-213, 
Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 213-9014.
    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 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: Donna Sabis-Burns, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B-213, Washington, DC 20202-
6335. Telephone: (202) 213-9014. 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 
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 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. 
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 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

    Every student deserves access to well-prepared, qualified, and 
supported educators who reflect the rich diversity of our nation. To 
support student success, the Department is committed to recruiting, 
preparing, and retaining a well-prepared educator workforce that is 
culturally and linguistically diverse. Well before the COVID-19 
pandemic, low wages in the education profession, the cost of high 
quality educator preparation, inequitable funding practices, poor 
working conditions, and other factors contributed to a decline in new 
educators entering the field and high rates of educator attrition.\1\ 
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the shortage of education 
professionals in many communities.\2\ The impact of these factors may 
be especially challenging in schools that serve a high proportion of 
Indian students, and they are all key challenges that Tribal leaders 
have reported during Tribal Consultation. In response, as part of its 
Raise the Bar: Lead the World initiative (https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/), the Department is working with State educational 
agencies (SEAs), Tribal education agencies (TEAs), local

[[Page 60845]]

educational agencies (LEAs), and others to help them recruit and retain 
highly qualified and diverse educators by expanding access to high-
quality and affordable educator preparation, improving compensation and 
working conditions, providing high-quality new teacher induction, 
offering ongoing professional learning, providing opportunities for 
teacher leadership and career advancement, and increasing educator 
diversity. For additional information on Raise the Bar: Eliminate the 
Educator Shortage, please see https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/educators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. 
(2016). Solving the Teacher Shortage: How to Attract and Retain 
Excellent Educators. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/262.960.; Prince, C.D. (2022). Attracting Well-Qualified 
Teachers to Struggling Schools. American Federation of Teachers. 
https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/winter-2002/attracting-well-qualified-teachers-struggling.; Walker, T. (2019). 
Educators and Parents Reset the Class Size `Debate'. National 
Education Association. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/educators-and-parents-reset-class-size-debate.
    \2\ U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Raise the Bar Policy 
Brief: Eliminating Educator Shortages through Increased 
Compensation, High-Quality and Affordable Educator Preparation and 
Teacher Leadership. https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/eliminating-educator-shortages-compensation-preparation-leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Professional Development program can help address the unique 
needs of Indian students by expanding the proportion of educators who 
share their cultural and linguistic background. Research indicates that 
Indian teachers have a significant impact on Indian students. Students 
who have exposure to teachers who represent their background 
demonstrate improved academic achievement.\3\ While approximately one 
percent of students were Indian or Alaska Native in school year 2020-
2021, 0.5 percent of educators shared this background (for additional 
information, see https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Olson, L. (2023). Teachers Like Us: Strategies for 
Increasing Educator Diversity in Public Schools. FutureEd. 
Washington, DC: McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown 
University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indian teacher education and retention is an investment in Tribal 
Nations that strengthens their capacity to address community needs.\4\ 
When Indian students in the fourth and eighth grade were asked who 
taught them most of what they know about their Indian history, 
language, and traditions, they ranked teachers second only to their 
families. Yet 60 percent of those students had teachers who reported 
never attending professional development programs aimed at developing 
culturally responsive instructional practices for Indian students over 
the past two years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Anthony-Stevens, V., Moss, I., Como Jacobson, A., Boysen-
Taylor, R., & Campbell-Daniels, S. (2022). Grounded in relationships 
of support: Indigenous teacher mentorship in the Rural West. The 
Rural Educator, 43(1), 88-104. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v43i1.1209.
    \5\ Rampey, B.D., Faircloth, S.C., Whorton, R.P., and Deaton, J. 
(2021). National Indian Education Study 2019 (NCES 2021-018). U.S. 
Department of Education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education 
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary proposes to revise the regulations in 34 CFR part 263 
that govern the Professional Development program to better enable the 
Department and grantees to meet the objectives of the program, 
including supporting educator retention efforts. As described in the 
Tribal Consultation section of this document, Tribes favored expanding 
and increasing efforts to retain high-quality Indian educators. This 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) also reflects recent congressional 
interest in promoting retention of effective educators through 
Department programs. Accordingly, the Department proposes two new 
priorities and accompanying requirements for applicants proposing to 
retain highly effective Indian educators. The Secretary also proposes 
to revise the payback requirements to be responsive to comments 
received during Tribal Consultation.
    We propose adding two new priorities that respond to the need to 
retain effective Indian educators. The first is a priority for projects 
focused on the retention of Indian educators. The second priority is 
for applications submitted by an SEA, LEA, or Bureau of Indian 
Education (BIE) school as the lead applicant, in consortium with an 
institution of higher education (IHE). This priority would support the 
applicants that are directly responsible for retaining teachers. Note, 
there is already a priority in Sec.  263.6(a)(1) for applications 
submitted by an Indian Tribe, Indian organization (including a TEA that 
meets the definition of ``Indian organization'' in Sec.  263.3), or 
TCU.
    For use in the priority on the retention of Indian educators, we 
also propose a new definition of ``educator'' that is broad and 
informed by ESEA sections 6122(a)(2), 8101(42)(A), and 8101(35). The 
proposed definition includes teachers, principals, administrators, and 
other school leaders, as well as specialized instructional support 
personnel (e.g., school psychologists, school counselors, school social 
workers, librarians, early intervention service personnel), 
paraprofessionals, and other faculty. A broad definition creates the 
opportunity for the Department to support communities in addressing a 
variety of needs facing their schools and classrooms, such as utilizing 
early intervention service personnel to provide targeted instruction to 
students and additional support to teachers. At the same time, the 
definition is structured to allow the Department to focus on particular 
groups of educators, such as teachers, in a given grant competition.
    Applicants addressing the priority on Indian educator retention 
would propose an educator retention initiative to help address the 
shortage of Indian educators and expand their impact on Indian 
students' education. For example, applicants could propose an educator 
retention initiative providing Indian educators the opportunity to 
facilitate, lead, or engage in sustained, intensive, job-embedded, 
data-driven, classroom-focused professional learning that is 
collaborative and evidence based. Applicants could also propose a 
retention initiative to support compensated educator leadership models 
designed to increase the retention of effective, experienced Indian 
educators who take on leadership responsibilities to help ensure that 
Indian students gain knowledge and understanding of their communities, 
languages, histories, traditions, and cultures and support their peers. 
Applicants addressing the proposed priority for applications from an 
SEA, LEA, or BIE school would propose an initiative as the lead 
applicant in consortium with an IHE. This may be especially relevant in 
circumstances where the SEA, LEA, or BIE school is likely to be the 
employer, but must still work in partnership with an IHE to meet the 
statutory eligibility requirements.
    In addition, we propose updates to the payback requirements to 
ensure that more programmatic models are feasible, including by 
clarifying that payback requirements only apply to pre-service 
training, distinguishing between the payback requirements for 
individuals who receive training as full-time or part-time students, 
and explicitly clarifying that payback may continue after the end of a 
grant.
    We invite comment specifically on the effects of the proposed 
regulations on small entities, and on whether there may be further 
opportunities to reduce any potential adverse impacts, or increase 
potential benefits, resulting from these proposed regulations without 
impeding the effective and efficient administration of the Indian 
Education Discretionary Grant programs.

Tribal Consultation

    Due to the Federal Government's unique political and legal 
relationship with Tribes, as set forth in the Constitution of the 
United States, treaties, Federal law, and Executive orders, the 
Department held three virtual Tribal consultations relevant to these 
proposed regulations on June 30, 2022, January 24, 2023, and May 23, 
2023. The Department announced the opportunities through various 
external listservs and social media.
    In the sessions on June 30, 2022, and May 23, 2023, the Department 
sought feedback from elected Tribal leaders on three topics: future 
priority areas, the

[[Page 60846]]

needs of Indian students, and future budget development. In these 
sessions, the Department posed 10 specific questions to Tribal leaders 
or their proxies to inform the design of future competitions. Tribal 
Consultation with elected Tribal leaders or their officially designated 
proxies informed the proposed priorities, requirements, and definition.
    To begin, the Department requested input on future priority areas 
and funding levels for programs with Tribal implications. The majority 
of Tribal leaders expressed the need for educator, principal, school 
leader, and administrator retention and recruitment support, including 
professional development, housing, and access to mental and emotional 
health resources for both educators and students. Particularly in rural 
areas, Tribal leaders emphasized retention and ``grow your own'' 
programs to increase the number of effective educators who enter, and 
stay in, the profession. Several leaders also expressed the need for 
Native American language and culture revitalization and resources. 
Additionally, one participant requested reprioritizing doctoral program 
assistance for Indian students.
    The FY 2023 Demonstration Grants for Indian Children competition 
invited applications to support Native American teacher retention. The 
priorities proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking would allow 
the Department to run future Indian teacher retention competitions 
under the Professional Development program. Adding these priorities 
under the Professional Development program would provide more 
flexibility and agency to SEAs, LEAs, BIE schools, and Tribal 
applicants to address the variety of factors impacting Indian teacher 
retention.
    During the June 30, 2022, and May 23, 2023, Tribal consultations, 
the Department also requested input on the fiscal year (FY) 2024 and 
2025 budget proposals, data sources to inform the budget, budget 
presentation, and future budget development. The majority of Tribal 
leaders highlighted a need to support Native American language 
programs, technology, and housing in rural areas, and they stressed the 
difficulty of recruiting and retaining educators without adequate 
housing.
    The majority of written comments submitted for the May 23, 2023, 
Tribal Consultation echoed the need for language and cultural 
revitalization, resources for language teaching and training programs, 
and social supports such as mental health services. Half of the written 
comments emphasized educator shortages and the need for additional 
postsecondary education funding. In response to these comments, the 
Department proposes a priority for projects focused on the retention of 
Indian educators and proposes the definition of ``educators'' to 
include specialized instructional support personnel, providing 
flexibility for SEAs, LEAs, BIE schools, and Tribal applicants to meet 
the mental and emotional needs of students and educators.
    In the development of the FY 2023 Native American Teacher Retention 
Initiative, the Department held an additional virtual Tribal 
Consultation on January 24, 2023. The Department requested specific 
input from Tribal Nations on which of three priority options from the 
Secretary's Supplemental Priority 3 would best support the initiative.
    The majority of Tribal leaders expressed that educator preparation 
and retention should be prioritized to ensure that teaching is seen as 
a viable profession for Indian students to pursue. Tribal leaders 
supported raising salaries and providing other benefits to keep 
teachers from leaving the profession or finding better opportunities in 
higher-paying areas. Additionally, Tribal leaders said that exposing 
Indian students to more Indian educators would help students see 
teaching as a viable career path. In response to this feedback, the 
Department proposes a priority for projects focused on the retention of 
Indian educators and a priority for SEAs, LEAs, or BIE schools applying 
as lead applicants.
    The Department also requested input from Tribal Nations on 
identifying challenges that impact Indian educator retention, ways to 
overcome these challenges, and any known innovative educator leadership 
models to increase retention of effective, experienced Indian 
educators. The Tribal leaders also described additional barriers to 
educator retention, such as salaries and housing availability or 
housing costs that still need to be addressed.
    Tribal leaders in all three Tribal consultations stressed the 
importance of retaining Indian educators as well as ways that strong 
retention initiatives can improve student achievement, increase school 
leadership, and create culturally responsive instructional and 
curricular resources to meet students' needs. In response to these 
comments, the Department proposes priorities to support SEA, LEA, BIE 
school, and Tribal applicants in addressing these needs.

Proposed Regulations

    We group major proposals according to section of the regulations.

What definitions apply to the Professional Development program? (Sec.  
263.3)

    Statute: The program statute addresses the training, development, 
and retention of school staff who serve Indian students, variously 
referring to teachers, education professionals, educators, 
administrators, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals, 
counselors, social workers, and specialized instructional support 
personnel.
    Current Regulations: The program regulations in part 263 restate 
the program purpose and list school staff including teachers, 
educators, principals, other school leaders, administrators, teacher 
aides, paraprofessionals, counselors, social workers, and specialized 
instructional support personnel.
    Proposed Regulations: For use in the Indian educator retention 
priority, we propose to create an umbrella term for such school staff 
by establishing a defined term ``educator.''
    Reasons: We propose to establish the broad defined term 
``educator'' for the purpose of the retention priority, to capture all 
of the educational professionals currently referenced in the program 
statute and regulations who serve Indian students and have a hand in 
their outcomes, using terminology consistent with that used in ESEA 
section 6122(a). As proposed, the Department would have the flexibility 
to choose from among these education professionals, in a given 
competition, which would allow the Department, where appropriate, to 
target specific kinds of educators in response to local needs or 
changing priorities.

What are the application requirements for these grants? (Sec.  263.5)

    Statute: ESEA section 6122(e) specifies three application 
requirements.
    Current Regulations: Section 263.5 includes the statutory 
application requirements and regulatory clarifications.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to revise Sec.  263.5 to 
distinguish between the application requirements that are required for 
every competition under the Professional Development program and those 
that may be applied in any year at the Secretary's discretion and as 
appropriate to the competition.
    Reasons: The proposed changes would allow the Department to tailor

[[Page 60847]]

the application requirements to the type of priority used in a 
particular competition. For example, if the Department were to use only 
the priority for a retention program in a particular competition, we 
would not require one or more letters of support from LEAs that serve a 
high proportion of Indian students indicating their plans to consider 
graduates of the Professional Development program for employment, as 
that is an application requirement related to the priorities for pre-
service training.

What priority is given to certain projects and applicants? (Sec.  
263.6)

    Statute: ESEA section 6122(a)(4) provides that one purpose of the 
Professional Development program is to develop and implement 
initiatives to promote the retention of effective educators, 
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.
    Current Regulations: Section 263.6 contains two competitive 
preference priorities in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), and four optional 
priorities in paragraph (b) that the Secretary may use in any year in 
which there is a new competition.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a priority for projects 
focused on Indian educator retention to Sec.  263.6(b). We also propose 
to add a priority for applications submitted by SEA, LEA, or BIE school 
applicants as lead applicants in consortia with IHEs to Sec.  263.6(b).
    Reasons: We propose the new Indian educator retention priority to 
address the need, heard through Tribal consultation, to support Indian 
Tribes and Indian organizations (including TEAs), SEAs, LEAs, and BIE 
schools in addressing the shortage of Indian educators and increasing 
educators' impact on Indian students' education. The proposed priority 
for SEA, LEA, and BIE school applicants would provide these applicants 
more control and flexibility in implementing educator retention 
initiatives. Because SEAs, LEAs, and BIE school applicants are more 
likely to be the employers of elementary and secondary educators than 
are IHEs, their role as the lead applicant can promote strong program 
implementation, particularly for retention initiatives, that will 
benefit Indian students in accordance with the purposes described in 
ESEA section 6122(a). This priority would be in addition to the 
priority for Tribal lead applicants in Sec.  263.6(a)(1), which applies 
to TEA applicants that meet the definition of an ``Indian 
organization'' in Sec.  263.3.
    We are not proposing to remove any of the existing priorities from 
the regulations. The proposed priorities would provide additional 
options from which the Department may choose for any competition under 
the Professional Development program. Two of the purposes of the 
Professional Development program described in ESEA section 6122(a) are 
to increase the number of qualified Indian teachers and administrators 
that serve Indian students and to develop and implement initiatives to 
promote the retention of effective teachers, principals, and school 
leaders. Adding these proposed priorities would encourage new projects 
to increase the retention of Indian educators and encourage 
partnerships between SEAs, LEAs, BIE schools, Tribal applicants, and 
IHEs to improve the achievement of Indian students by increasing their 
engagement with highly effective Indian educators.

What are the payback requirements? (Sec.  263.9)

    Statute: Under ESEA section 6122(h), the Secretary must require 
through regulations a service obligation for individuals who receive 
training under the Professional Development program. Such work must 
relate to the training received under the program and benefit Indian 
students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students. An 
individual not performing such work must repay all or a prorated part 
of the assistance received.
    Current Regulations: Section 263.9 establishes payback 
requirements. The current regulations set the work-related payback 
requirement equal to the total period of time for which pre-service or 
in-service training was actually received on a month-for-month basis. 
The current regulations also describe requirements for a payback 
agreement, cash payback, and opportunities for payback deferral based 
on continued education or military service. The current regulations do 
not specify that payback is only required for pre-service training or 
distinguish between individuals who receive full-time training through 
the Professional Development program and those who receive part-time 
training.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose clarifying that pre-service 
training requires payback and retention activities do not require 
payback. We also propose to change the required payback time period so 
that individuals who participate in training under the Professional 
Development program on a part-time basis incur a payback period 
equivalent to the accumulated academic years of training the 
participant received. For example, if a participant completed part-time 
pre-service training over the course of two years that is equivalent to 
one academic year, they must complete work-related payback for the 
number of months that are equivalent to one full academic year at the 
institution where they received the training (e.g., ten months).
    Reasons: These changes would allow the Professional Development 
program to more fully meet its mission of recruiting qualified Indian 
individuals to become educators and offer part-time students a service 
payback option that is equivalent to the accumulated academic-year 
equivalent of the credit they received through training.
    In addition, these updates clarify that individuals who receive 
services as part of an educator retention program would be 
beneficiaries of services related to their current roles as educators 
and not participants in a pre-service training program that requires 
work payback.

What are the requirements for payback deferral? (Sec.  263.10)

    Statute: Under ESEA section 6122(h)(2), the Secretary must require 
periodic work-related payback reporting for individuals receiving 
training under the Professional Development program. An individual not 
performing such work must repay all or a prorated part of the 
assistance received.
    Current Regulations: Section 263.10 establishes payback deferral 
requirements. The current regulations permit deferral for military 
service or continued education and describe the requirements for 
obtaining deferral under these circumstances.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to expand the circumstances under 
which the Secretary may grant exceptions to and deferral of the payback 
requirement for pre-service training. Specifically, we propose to add 
exceptions for participants who experience permanent disability and 
deferrals for participants who experience temporary disability, or are 
serving as a full-time volunteer for an Indian Tribe. We also propose 
regulations that would establish the process for requesting an 
exception or deferral based on the underlying reason for the request.
    Reasons: Consistent with the Department's administration of other 
programs with payback or similar requirements, the Department proposes 
to add an exemption for participants who are unable to meet their 
obligations due to death or permanent disability. Similarly, we propose 
to allow participants to defer their payback

[[Page 60848]]

obligations in the event of temporary disability. We propose to allow 
deferral for temporary disabilities for up to 36 months to help ensure 
that participants have adequate time for recovery and to reacclimate 
into the workforce, before resuming their statutory payback obligation. 
An individual experiencing a disability that was initially thought to 
be temporary but became permanent could request an exception on the 
basis of a permanent disability any time during the maximum allowable 
deferral of 36 months. We propose these grounds for exemption and 
deferral in recognition that many participants face changing life 
circumstances and to make the payback requirement less daunting and 
more flexible so grantees can recruit a robust pool of qualified 
participants.
    We propose to allow payback deferral for participants who are full-
time volunteers for Indian Tribes for several reasons. First, we 
believe that encouraging such volunteer experience, while ensuring that 
payback requirements are still met, will help serve the purpose of the 
program by providing participants with experience and knowledge that 
will enhance their ability to effectively serve Indian students. In 
addition to benefiting the participants and their Indian students, such 
volunteer work would help to build capacity of Indian Tribes, which has 
been identified by Tribal leaders as a critical need. Again, we propose 
to allow this flexibility in recognition that many participants face 
changing life circumstances and to improve program recruitment. We note 
that, in recent years, participants and grantees have requested that we 
provide more flexibility in programs that support Indian Self-
Determination, to expand their impact. Together with the current 
exemption and deferral options, this and the other proposed changes 
would promote such flexibility, while balancing the need to ensure that 
the program purpose is served and payback obligations are met.
    To ensure that the process for requesting and obtaining such 
exceptions and deferrals is clear and accessible, we have proposed 
simple procedures that would ensure the Department has the relevant 
supporting information without imposing unnecessary burden on 
applicants.

What are the post-award requirements for grantees providing pre-service 
training? (Sec.  263.12)

    Statute: Section 6122 and the related portions of title VI of the 
ESEA require a service payback obligation for individuals who receive 
training.
    Current Regulations: Under Sec.  263.12, prior to providing funds 
to a participant, a grantee must conduct a payback meeting with the 
participant to explain related costs and the participant's 
responsibilities after receiving pre-service training. The grantee must 
report to the Secretary all participant training and payback 
information in a manner specified by the Department or its designee.
    Proposed Regulations: Under the proposed regulations, prior to 
providing funds or services to a participant, and for each subsequent 
year that training funds are disbursed, each grantee would be required 
to meet with the participant and enter into a written agreement to 
ensure all parties are informed about the purposes of the participant's 
compliance with payback requirements; estimated length of the training; 
total training costs; the total amount of assistance accrued year-to-
date; contact information for the Office of Indian Education; and a 
statement explaining that work must be in an ``LEA that serves a high 
proportion of Indian students.'' In addition, we propose to include a 
requirement for exit certification. At the time a participant exits 
from the training program, the grantee must provide certain information 
to the participant, including: the name of the institution and the 
number of the Federal grant that provided the scholarship; the number 
of months the participant needs to work to satisfy the payment 
requirements; the total amount of scholarship assistance received; the 
participant's field of study; and the obligation of the participant to 
perform the service obligation. Upon receipt from the grantee, the 
participant must provide written certification that the information 
provided is correct. The proposed regulations would also require the 
grantee to develop and publish standards for measuring a participant's 
progress in their training program and require the grantee to report 
all participant training and payback information to the Secretary.
    Reasons: We propose these changes for several reasons. The proposed 
changes would increase accountability for both grantees and 
participants, and give participants more information about their 
responsibilities under the professional development program. In recent 
years, an increasing number of participants have requested information 
about their payback requirements, indicating the need for a more 
informative approach. Making these changes would provide more 
capability for the Department to ensure grantee and participant 
compliance with all requirements of this program.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

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 
(as of 2023 but to be adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of 
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 
stated in the 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 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

[[Page 60849]]

(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 these 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: There would be greater potential 
benefits while the potential costs associated with the proposed 
regulatory changes would be minimal.
    For Professional Development grants, there will be no additional 
time or cost for applicants developing an application under the 
proposed priorities and application requirements. The benefits include 
allowing the program to more fully meet its mission of recruiting and 
retaining qualified Indian individuals to become educators. We 
anticipate no additional time spent reporting full-time participant 
payback information in the Professional Development Program Data 
Collection System (PDPDCS). 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 program and the needs of 
potential grantees with the result being more educators remaining in 
their current positions and expanding their impact on Indian students 
and communities and more accurately calculating the length of payback 
for participants in part-time training. We added deferral payback 
options for participants who serve as full-time volunteers with Indian 
Tribes because it will provide them with opportunities to better 
understand the educational needs of Indian students, while helping to 
build the capacity of Tribes. These deferral pathways would provide 
participants more flexibility and help them obtain experience that 
fulfills their service obligation and provides relief to Tribal 
communities.
    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, IHEs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, 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.
    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 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

    The proposed regulations do not create any new information 
collection requirements under OMB Control number 1810-0722 and 
therefore do not change the related information collection.
    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

[[Page 60850]]

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. (Assistance Listing 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 requirements, 
Scholarships and fellowships.

Adam Schott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, For Policy and Programs, Delegated the 
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant 
Secretary, Office of 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. Amend Sec.  263.3 by adding a definition for ``educator'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  263.3  What definitions apply to the Professional Development 
program?

* * * * *
    Educator means an individual who is one or more of--
    (1) A teacher (including an early education teacher);
    (2) A principal or other school leader;
    (3) An administrator;
    (4) Specialized instructional personnel (e.g., school psychologist, 
school counselor, school social worker, school nurse, librarian, early 
intervention service personnel);
    (5) A paraprofessional; or
    (6) Faculty.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise 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, if applicable;
    (2) Use funds made available under the grant to support the 
recruitment, preparation, retention, and professional development of 
Indian teachers or principals in LEAs that serve a high proportion of 
Indian students; and
    (3) Assist participants who receive pre-service training in meeting 
the payback requirements under Sec.  263.9(b), if applicable;
    (b) If required by the Secretary through a notice inviting 
applications published in the Federal Register, 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'';
    (d) If it is an affected LEA that is subject to the requirements of 
section 8358 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (ESEA), consult with appropriate officials from Tribe(s) or 
Tribal organizations approved by the Tribes located in the area served 
by the LEA prior to its submission of an application, as required under 
ESEA section 8538; and
    (e) Comply with any other requirements in the application package.
0
4. Amend Sec.  263.6 by adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  263.6  What priority is given to certain projects and applicants?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Indian educator retention. The Secretary establishes a priority 
for projects that--
    (i) Propose an educator retention initiative to help address the 
shortage of fully certified Indian educators to help ensure that Indian 
students gain knowledge and understanding of Native communities, 
languages, histories, traditions, and cultures and expand their impact 
on Indian students' education; or
    (ii) Support compensated educator leadership models designed to 
increase the retention of effective, experienced Indian educators who 
take on additional leadership and peer support responsibilities such 
that Indian teachers have the opportunity to advance in their careers 
and earn additional compensation.
    (6) State or local educational agencies or Bureau of Indian 
Education school lead applicants. The Secretary establishes a priority 
for applications that are submitted by one or more of the below types 
of applicants, in consortium with an institution of higher education, 
which could include a Tribal college or university:

[[Page 60851]]

    (i) State educational agency.
    (ii) Local educational agency.
    (iii) Bureau of Indian Education school.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  263.9 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b)(2).
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(5).
0
c. Removing paragraph (c)(4) and redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as 
paragraph (c)(4).
0
d. Revising the newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4) and the note to 
Sec.  263.9.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  263.9  What are the payback requirements?

    (a) General. All participants who receive pre-service training 
must--
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The period of time required for a work-related payback is 
determined as follows:
    (i) If a participant was a full-time student in a pre-service 
training program, the work-related payback period is equivalent to the 
total period of time for which pre-service training under the 
Professional Development program was actually received on a month-for-
month basis.
    (ii) If a participant was a part-time student in a pre-service 
training program, the work-related payback period is proportional to 
the accumulated academic years for which pre-service training under the 
Professional Development program was actually received on a month-for-
month basis, taking into consideration the typical academic calendar of 
the institution where the training was received.
    (iii) If a participant received pre-service training as a full-time 
student for a portion of the program and as a part-time student for 
another portion of the program, the period of work-related payback is 
prorated accordingly.
* * * * *
    (5) The work-related payback period for an individual supported 
under the Professional Development program may extend beyond the end of 
the performance period of the Professional Development grant.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, participants 
who exited or completed a grant-funded pre-service training program in 
Federal fiscal year 2020 (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) who did 
not submit employment verification within 24 months of program exit or 
completion, and participants with qualifying employment during Federal 
fiscal year 2020 who did not submit employment verification for a 24-
month period, will automatically be referred for a cash payback unless 
the participant qualifies for a deferral as described in Sec.  263.10.
    Note to Sec.  263.9: For grants that provide pre-service 
administrator training, a participant who has received administrator 
training and subsequently works for a Tribal education 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.
0
6. Revise Sec.  263.10 to read as follows:


Sec.  263.10  What are the exceptions to payback requirements and 
requirements for payback deferral?

    (a) Exceptions to payback. Based upon sufficient evidence to 
substantiate the grounds, the Secretary may grant, in whole or in part, 
an exception to the repayment requirement in Sec.  263.9 as follows:
    (1) Repayment is not required if the participant--
    (i) Is unable to continue the course of study or perform the 
service obligation because of a permanent disability that--
    (A) Had not been diagnosed at the time the participant executed the 
initial agreement; or
    (B) Did not originally prevent the participant from performing the 
requirements of the course of study or the service obligation at the 
time the participant signed the agreement but subsequently the 
participant's condition has worsened; or
    (ii) Has died.
    (2) To request an exception to payback under paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section for oneself or on behalf of another individual, a 
requestor must submit an explanation of the reason for the exception 
along with substantiating evidence to the Secretary through the program 
officer.
    (b) Deferral of payback. Subject to meeting the requirements of 
this section, the Secretary may defer payback requirements during the 
time the participant is--
    (1) Continuing education after completing or exiting the 
Professional Development program, in a full- or part-time course of 
study without interruption, in a program leading to a degree at an 
accredited institution of higher education;
    (2) Serving on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States;
    (3) Serving as a full-time volunteer for an Indian Tribe;
    (4) Experiencing a temporary disability that affects the 
participant's ability to continue the course of study or perform the 
work obligation, for a period not to exceed thirty-six months.
    (c) Secretarial exceptions. Under limited circumstances as 
determined by the Secretary and based upon evidence submitted by the 
participant, the Secretary may grant an exception to, or deferral of, 
the payback requirement under circumstances not specified in this 
section. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the 
need to care for a disabled spouse, partner, or child, or to accompany 
a spouse or partner on active duty in the Armed Forces or Bureau of 
Indian Affairs law enforcement.
    (d) Requesting payback deferral for continuing education.
    (1) To receive a payback deferral under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, a participant must submit a request to the Secretary through 
the program officer that includes--
    (i) The name of the accredited institution the student will be 
attending;
    (ii) A copy of the letter of admission from the institution;
    (iii) The degree being sought; and
    (iv) The projected date of completion.
    (2) If the Secretary approves the deferral of the payback 
requirement under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the participant 
must submit to the Secretary through the program officer a status 
report from an academic advisor or other authorized representative of 
the institution of higher education, showing verification of enrollment 
and status, after every grading period.
    (e) Requesting payback deferral for active duty in the Armed 
Forces. If a participant exits the Professional Development program 
because the participant is called or ordered to active duty status in 
connection with a war, military operation, or national emergency for 
more than 30 days as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or as a member of the National Guard 
on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5), 
the Secretary may defer the payback requirement until the participant 
has completed the military service. Requests for deferral must be 
submitted to the Secretary through the program officer within 30 days 
of the earlier of receiving the call to military service or completing 
or exiting the Professional Development program, and must include--
    (1) A written statement from the participant's commanding or 
personnel officer certifying--

[[Page 60852]]

    (i) That the participant is on active duty in the Armed Forces of 
the United States;
    (ii) The date on which the participant's service began; and
    (iii) The date on which the participant's service is expected to 
end; or
    (2) (i) A true certified copy of the participant's official 
military orders; and
    (ii) A copy of the participant's military identification.
    (f) Requesting payback deferral for volunteer work.
    (1) To receive a payback deferral related to qualifying volunteer 
work under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the participant must 
submit a request to the Secretary through the program officer that 
includes--
    (i) The name of the Indian Tribe at which the participant will be 
volunteering;
    (ii) A copy of the letter appointing the participant as a full-time 
volunteer at the Indian Tribe;
    (iii) A statement of volunteer work to be performed; and
    (iv) The projected date of completion.
    (2) If the Secretary approves payback deferral under this paragraph 
(f), the participant must submit to the Secretary through the program 
officer a status report from an authorized representative from the 
entity with which the participant is volunteering, showing verification 
of continued engagement every 12 months. The Secretary may defer the 
payback requirement until the participant has completed his or her 
qualifying volunteer work, for a period not to exceed 36 months.
    (g) To receive a payback deferral under paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section, the participant must submit a request to the Secretary through 
the program officer that includes--
    (1) An explanation of the reason for the deferral;
    (2) An indication of the length of time for which they are 
requesting deferral; and
    (3) Substantiating evidence.
0
7. Revise Sec.  263.12 to read as follows:


263.12  What are the post-award requirements for grantees providing 
pre-service training?

    (a) Requirement for payback meeting. Prior to providing funds or 
services to a participant, the grantee must conduct a payback meeting 
with the participant to explain the costs of training and payback 
responsibilities following training.
    (b) Requirement for payback agreement. (1) Prior to providing funds 
or services to a participant, and for each subsequent year that 
training funds are disbursed, the grantee must enter into a written 
agreement with each participant in which the participant agrees to the 
terms and conditions required by this section.
    (2) The payback agreement must explain the Secretary's authority to 
grant deferrals and exceptions to the service obligation pursuant to 
Sec.  263.10 and include--
    (i) The current Department address for purposes of the 
participant's compliance with Sec.  263.11, or any other purpose under 
this part, and other Office of Indian Education contact information;
    (ii) The estimated length of training;
    (iii) The total training costs;
    (iii) The total amount of assistance accrued year-to-date;
    (iv) The total number of months in the service obligation year-to-
date;
    (v) 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
    (vi) Information documenting that the grantee held a payback 
meeting with the participant that meets the requirements of this 
section.
    (3) A grantee must submit a signed payback agreement to the 
Department within 30 days of the date on which the payback agreement is 
fully executed by the grantee and participant. The grantee must provide 
a copy of the payback agreement to the participant upon execution.
    (c) Exit certification. At the time of exit from the program, the 
grantee must provide the below information to the participant. Upon 
receipt of this information from the grantee, the participant must 
provide written certification to the grantee that the information is 
correct:
    (1) The name of the institution where the participant received pre-
service training and the number of the Federal grant that provided the 
scholarship.
    (2) The number of months the participant needs to work in an LEA 
that serves a high proportion of Indian students to satisfy the payback 
requirements in Sec.  263.9.
    (3) The total amount of financial assistance received.
    (4) The participant's field of study and the obligation of the 
participant to perform the service obligation with employment that 
meets the requirements in Sec.  263.9(b).
    (d) Career preparation. During the grant period, a grantee must 
conduct activities to assist participants in identifying qualified 
employment opportunities following completion of the program.
    (e) Information and annual reporting. The grantee must report to 
the Secretary all participant training and payback information in a 
manner specified by the Secretary as well as any other information that 
is necessary to carry out the Secretary's functions under section 6122 
of the ESEA and this part. Each grantee will make annual reports to the 
Secretary, unless more frequent reporting is required by the Secretary, 
that are necessary to carry out the Secretary's functions under this 
part.
    (f) Standards for satisfactory progress. The grantee must 
establish, publish, notify participants of, and apply reasonable 
standards for measuring whether a participant is making satisfactory 
progress in the training program. The Secretary considers an 
institution's standards to be reasonable if the standards--
    (1) Are the same as the institution's standards for a student 
enrolled in the same academic program who is not receiving assistance 
under this program; and
    (2) Include the following elements:
    (i) Grades, work projects completed, including performance tasks, 
or comparable factors that are measurable against a norm and are 
aligned with demonstrating effective practice.
    (ii) A maximum timeframe in which the participant must complete the 
participant's educational objective, degree, or certificate.
    (iii) Consistent application of standards to all participants 
within categories of students, (e.g., full-time, part-time, 
undergraduate students, and graduate students).
    (iv) Specific policies defining the effect of course incompletes, 
withdrawals, repetitions, and noncredit remedial courses on 
satisfactory progress.
    (v) Specific procedures for appeal of a determination that a 
participant is not making satisfactory progress and for reinstatement 
of aid.
    (g) Requirement for Indian Preference. (1) Under section 7(b) of 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-
638), to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee must--
    (i) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and 
employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
    (ii) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic 
enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 
1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in 
connection with the administration of the grant.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph (g), an Indian is a member 
of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.


[[Page 60853]]


(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7442, 25 U.S.C. 5304, 5307)

[FR Doc. 2024-16206 Filed 7-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P