2025-19843.pdf

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section.

Notices Federal Register

50861

Vol. 90, No. 216

Wednesday, November 12, 2025

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice of members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: These appointments were effective on October 1, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Candice Starks by telephone at (202) 360–9527, or by email at Candice.Starks@dnfsb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C.

4314(c)(1) through (5) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of the senior executives’ performance, the executives’ responses, and the higher-level officials’ comments on the initial summary rating. In addition, the PRB will recommend executive performance bonuses and pay increases.

The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, some members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies.

On October 1, 2025, the following members were appointed to the PRB:

Marguerite C. Garrison, Deputy

Inspector General for Administrative

Investigations, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General

Theresa Perolini, Assistant Inspector General for Enterprise and External Affairs, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General

Troy M. Meyer, Deputy Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General

Njema Frazier, Associate Technical Director—Nuclear Weapons Program, Defense Nuclear Safety Facilities Board

Omar Lopez-Santiago, Associate Technical Director—Nuclear Materials Processing and Stabilization, Defense Nuclear Safety Facilities Board

James Biggins, Deputy Executive Director for Risk and Strategy, Defense Nuclear Safety Facilities Board

These appointments were approved by the former Acting Chairman, Thomas Summers, who has since departed the DNFSB following the conclusion of his term of office. On November 6, 2025, Mary Buhler, the Executive Director of Operations, approved a revision to the PRB membership in light of the unavailability of individuals due to the government shutdown. Notice of those appointments was published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2025.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314.

Dated: November 7, 2025.

Eric Fox, Federal Register Liaison, Associate General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2025–19847 Filed 11–10–25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards; Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education—Special Projects (FIPSE—

SP)

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary

Education Special Projects, Assistance Listing Number 84.116J. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894–0006.

DATES:

Applications Available: November 12, 2025.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: December 3, 2025.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 12, 2025.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stacey Slijepcevic, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.

Telephone: (202) 453–6150. Email:

Stacey.Slijepcevic@ed.gov.

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:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The FIPSE Special Projects Program provides grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs), combinations of such institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies, as the Secretary deems necessary, to support innovative projects concerning one or more areas of national need identified by the Secretary. This competition focuses on supporting four areas of national need—

(1) advancing the understanding of and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in postsecondary education,

(2) promoting civil discourse on college and university campuses, (3) promoting accreditation reform, and (4) supporting capacity-building for high-quality short-term programs.

In order to support these four crucial needs, this competition includes seven absolute priorities under which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:50 Nov 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1lo tte r on

D S

K

X Q

N

P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S mailto:Stacey.Slijepcevic@ed.gov mailto:Candice.Starks@dnfsb.gov https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant

50862 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 12, 2025 / Notices

1 Vanderbilt University & Washington University in St. Louis, (2025). ‘‘Easing the Burden: A Framework for Federal Regulatory Reform in Higher Education.’’ White Paper. https:// wustl.app.box.com/s/4rdzgs0lecy3tmfdedcx48 q1jqd62poh.

2 Woolston, P.J., (2012). The costs of institutional accreditation: A study of direct and indirect costs.

Doctoral Dissertation. https://www.proquest.com/ docview/1152182950?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations %20&%20Theses.

2 Burke, L., Kissel, A. Alacbay, A., & Beltramini, K., (2023). It’s Time for Congress to Dismantle the Higher Education Accreditation Cartel. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. https:// www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel.

2 Senate HELP Committee, (2015). Higher Education Accreditation Concepts and Proposals.

https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/ Accreditation.pdf.

applicants can apply: two priorities dedicated to advancing the understanding and use of AI in postsecondary education (Absolute Priorities 1 and 2), one priority dedicated to promoting civil discourse on college and university campuses (Absolute Priority 3), two priorities within promoting accreditation reform (Absolute Priorities 4 and 5), and two priorities for capacity-building for high-quality short-term programs (Absolute Priorities 6 and 7). The Department intends to award $50 million to advance AI in Education, $60 million to promote civil discourse on college and university campuses, $7 million to support accreditation reform, and $50 million for high-quality short-term programs.

The Department may adjust these estimates based on interest and quality of applications.

Background: Section 744 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), authorizes the Secretary to make grants to institutions of higher education, or consortia thereof, and such other public agencies and nonprofit organizations as the Secretary deems necessary for innovative projects concerning one or more areas of particular national need identified by the Secretary. Section 744(c) identifies a list of minimum areas of national need, and this is the first competition under section 744(c)(2) as revised by Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA). In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA).

Advancing the Understanding and Use of AI in Postsecondary Education:

President Trump’s Executive Order Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, Executive Order 14179 (Jan. 23, 2025), says ‘‘[w]ith the right Government policies, we can solidify our position as the global leader in AI and secure a brighter future for all Americans.’’ In July 2025, the Department took steps to support American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence by publishing the Proposed Priority and Definitions on Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education (90 FR 34203). As noted in this Notice of Proposed Priority, ‘‘[AI] is rapidly reshaping the future of education, work, learning, and daily life. As AI becomes more integrated into the tools and systems that shape elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, it is increasingly important for students to develop AI literacy. A strong foundation in AI literacy will help ensure students are prepared to navigate and contribute to a society where these technologies play a growing role in decision-making, communication, innovation, and career readiness.’’ In alignment with Executive Order 14179 and in recognition of the potential for AI to improve postsecondary teaching and learning, the Secretary has identified using artificial intelligence to support opportunities in postsecondary education as a particular area of national need. Additionally, President Trump’s Executive Order Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, Executive Order 14277 (Apr. 23, 2025), highlights the role postsecondary education can play by better preparing future and current teachers to teach and use AI, noting that ‘‘[b]y establishing a strong framework that integrates early student exposure with comprehensive teacher training and other resources for workforce development, we can ensure that every American has the opportunity to learn about AI from the earliest stages of their educational journey through postsecondary education, fostering a culture of innovation and critical thinking that will solidify our Nation’s leadership in the AI-driven future.’’

Promoting Civil Discourse on College and University Campuses: Protesters have increasingly exercised disruptive tactics, including shouting down speakers (the heckler’s veto) and blocking access to campus events, on our Nation’s college and university campuses. Civil discourse at America’s colleges and universities has been undermined by campus takeovers, violent riots, and even a recent high-profile political assassination. The core mission of our educational institutions—the pursuit of truth— requires that individuals be able to state their views freely and fully, without fear. It requires that students and faculty accept that people will inevitably disagree on controversial issues of the utmost importance and complexity.

Pursuing truth requires the recognition that students and faculty benefit from engaging with those who disagree with us with honesty, dignity, and respect.

This priority supports projects that are designed to promote civil discourse on college and university campuses through activities such as seminars, speaker series, conferences, debates, workshop training events, visiting professorships and other focused learning opportunities that include and promote a range of views and embrace dialogue and understanding. For students to have access to the best learning opportunities, learning environments must welcome and engage viewpoint diversity in a manner that values thoughtful debate and freedom of speech. This funding will provide an opportunity to support the cultivation of such environments on college and university campuses nationwide. The competitive preference priorities within this Absolute Priority are based on the Department’s position that guidance and coordination from independent and interdisciplinary academic units dedicated to promoting civic thought have the potential to increase the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Promoting Accreditation Reform:

Institutions of higher education must be accredited to receive title IV funding under the HEA, such as federal student loans and Pell Grants. The current accreditation process, both institutional and programmatic/specialized, is unnecessarily costly for colleges and universities, typically requiring tens of thousands of personnel hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, expenses that are ultimately borne by students. For example, two universities classified as having very high research activity reported FY 2024 accreditation compliance costs of $12 million and $27 million, respectively.1

In addition to being costly and burdensome, the accreditation process in many cases does not improve institutional or program quality.

Oftentimes, institutions are required to jump through an extensive set of bureaucratic hoops that have little to do with improving student outcomes or educational quality.2 Many institutions and members of the public view the accreditation process as primarily a compliance exercise, rather than one focused on enhancing student outcomes.

Although institutions are permitted to change their accrediting agency under 34 CFR 600.11, the substantial financial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:50 Nov 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1lo tte r on

D S

K

X Q

N

P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S https://www.proquest.com/docview/1152182950?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses https://www.proquest.com/docview/1152182950?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses https://www.proquest.com/docview/1152182950?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses https://www.proquest.com/docview/1152182950?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses https://wustl.app.box.com/s/4rdzgs0lecy3tmfdedcx48q1jqd62poh https://wustl.app.box.com/s/4rdzgs0lecy3tmfdedcx48q1jqd62poh https://wustl.app.box.com/s/4rdzgs0lecy3tmfdedcx48q1jqd62poh https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/Accreditation.pdf https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/Accreditation.pdf https://www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel https://www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel https://www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel https://www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel

50863 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 12, 2025 / Notices

3 In May 2025, the Department issued a Dear Colleague Letter eliminating unnecessary barriers for institutions seeking to change their accreditor.

https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/ library/dear-colleague-letters/2025-04-30/changes-approval-process-changing-accrediting-agencies.

4 Moody, J., (2023). Florida’s Accreditation Shuffle Begins. InsideHigherEd. https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/ accreditation/2023/08/30/flas-accreditation-shuffle-begins-one-college-gets-us.

4 Gretzinger, E., (2025). How UNC Led a First-of- Its-Kind Plan to Shake Up College Accreditation.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. https:// www.chronicle.com/article/how-unc-led-a-first-of-its-kind-plan-to-shake-up-college-accreditation.

burden, logistical hurdles, and heightened scrutiny involved often discourage them from do so, even when a different accreditor may better align with the institution’s needs.3 The cost of accreditation itself is significant, encompassing staffing costs (administrator and faculty salaries and benefits), document preparation costs (professional service fees, printing, and mailing), compliance costs (meeting accreditation standards), site visits (travel, lodging, and related expenses), and direct accreditation fees (membership charges). Changing accrediting agencies often entails maintaining dual accreditation expenses for a considerable period, as institutions generally cannot allow accreditation to lapse without risking critical benefits, including eligibility for Federal financial aid and professional licensure pathways.

States and nonprofit organizations also incur substantial costs in launching new, separate and independent accreditors. These burdens inhibit new accreditors from entering the marketplace efficiently. Recent reporting suggests that the ongoing work in North Carolina and Florida to establish a new accrediting agency has been a costly enterprise, which could deter other entities from launching similar reform initiatives.4 A lack of accreditor options hampers innovation in the higher education marketplace that could improve student outcomes, increase return on investment to families and taxpayers, and improve institutional accountability.

Collectively, these enumerated challenges make it difficult for institutions to change accreditors, either because the costs are prohibitive or there is a lack of alternatives. This funding opportunity will support institutions seeking to change accreditors, as well as emerging organizations working to become recognized accrediting agencies.

Capacity-Building for High-Quality Short-Term Programs: Not all workers need a traditional college degree to succeed in today’s economy. Rather, many individuals are best served by high-value, short-term postsecondary programs closely aligned to workforce demand. These programs—which include micro-credentials, and workforce certificates—can quickly provide individuals with the skillsets they need to pursue new and expanded career opportunities or advance through a Registered Apprenticeship program.

However, short-term programs can be costly for colleges to create and administer, particularly given the need to codesign short-term postsecondary programs with employers. These costs may prevent higher education institutions from offering, creating, or expanding the size of existing short-term programs. To address these issues, this competitive grant program will provide funding to institutions of higher education to expand their capacity to offer high-value, short-term postsecondary programs.

In July 2025, the President’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119–21, established Workforce Pell Grants, a new program to help students pay for high-quality, short-term programs. For the award year beginning on July 1, 2026, eligible students enrolled in accredited programs at accredited postsecondary institutions that are a minimum of 8 weeks but less than 15 weeks; that are aligned to high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations; that are portable and articulable to credit to support stackability and have strong completion rates, job placement rates, and earnings outcomes will receive Federal title IV grant funding. The Workforce Pell Grants program is designed to help support students gain immediate entry into the workforce. Yet, despite this new funding stream, some students may not be able to access high-quality, short-term programs that qualify for Workforce Pell Grants because of a lack of program supply. Colleges and universities, especially those with limited resources, may struggle to offer high-quality, short-term programs at the scale that students demand, and even when they do, strict class-size caps can restrict enrollment. Developing and expanding Workforce Pell-eligible high-quality, short-term programs can be costly for institutions, as it often requires hiring additional faculty and staff as well and investing in machinery, technology, production supplies, and equipment. These costs are especially high in advanced manufacturing, healthcare, and engineering fields, where programs usually require expensive equipment that are not easily scalable. Additionally, institutions often dedicate time and resources to develop and maintain close partnerships with employers and industry organizations in order to ensure the programs are aligned with the hiring requirements of businesses and keep pace with the evolving skill demands of industry. As a result, many students who want to enroll in a short-term program may not have a nearby institution offering an eligible option.

To address these challenges, this funding opportunity will allow institutions to develop and expand high-quality, short-term programs.

These funds can be utilized on activities that are directly related to developing or modifying high-quality, short-term programs that meet the requirements for Workforce Pell Grants outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as well as building capacity in existing short-term programs. Projects must be designed and executed in close collaboration with employers, to ensure that the resulting programs are responsive to industry demand.

Priorities: This notice contains seven absolute priorities across the four areas of national need established by the Secretary within this notice and two competitive preference priorities, in accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(vi). We are establishing these priorities for the fiscal year 2025 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities.

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Advancing

Artificial Intelligence to Improve Educational Outcomes of Postsecondary Students.

Priority: Projects or proposals to improve academic instruction and student learning, including efforts designed to assess the learning gains made by postsecondary students (section 744(c)(2)) of the HEA), through one or more of the following:

(a) Supporting the integration of AI literacy skills and concepts into teaching and learning practices to improve educational outcomes for students, including instruction about how to use AI responsibly, and how to detect AI generated disinformation or misinformation online; and

(b) Partnering with State Educational Agencies (SEAs) or Local Educational

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:50 Nov 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1lo tte r on

D S

K

X Q

N

P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2025-04-30/changes-approval-process-changing-accrediting-agencies https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2025-04-30/changes-approval-process-changing-accrediting-agencies https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2025-04-30/changes-approval-process-changing-accrediting-agencies https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2023/08/30/flas-accreditation-shuffle-begins-one-college-gets-us https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2023/08/30/flas-accreditation-shuffle-begins-one-college-gets-us https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2023/08/30/flas-accreditation-shuffle-begins-one-college-gets-us https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2023/08/30/flas-accreditation-shuffle-begins-one-college-gets-us https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-unc-led-a-first-of-its-kind-plan-to-shake-up-college-accreditation https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-unc-led-a-first-of-its-kind-plan-to-shake-up-college-accreditation https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-unc-led-a-first-of-its-kind-plan-to-shake-up-college-accreditation

50864 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 12, 2025 / Notices

Agencies (LEAs) to do one or more of the following:

(i) use AI technology to provide high-quality instructional resources, high-impact tutoring, and college and career pathway exploration, advising, and navigation to improve educational outcomes.

(ii) integrate AI-driven tools into classrooms to personalize learning, improve student outcomes, and support differentiated instruction. This integration may include, but is not limited to, adaptive learning technologies, virtual teaching assistants, tutoring, and data analytics tools to support student progress.

(iii) utilize AI in the classroom and/ or for school operation efficiency, including but not limited to: improving teacher training and evaluation, reducing time-intensive administrative tasks, or improving instruction or services for students with disabilities.

Absolute Priority 2: Ensuring Future Educators and Students Have Foundational Exposure to AI and Computer Science.

Priority: Projects or proposals to leverage AI to improve teacher preparation by doing one or more of the following:

(a) Deliver AI and computer science credentials in rural communities;

(b) Embed AI and computer science into an institution of higher education’s general preservice or in-service teacher professional development or teacher preparation programs;

(c) Provide additional support for teacher preparation programs that are preparing future computer science educators in K–12 education;

(d) Expand offerings of AI and computer science courses as part of an institution of higher education’s general education and/or core curriculum;

(e) Provide resources and support for the use of AI in teacher preparation programs;

(f) Partner with SEAs and/or LEAs to provide resources to K–12 students in foundational computer science and AI literacy, including through professional development for educators; and

(g) Partner with SEAs and/or LEAs to encourage the provision of dual-enrollment course opportunities so that students can earn postsecondary credentials and industry-recognized credentials in AI coursework concurrent with their high school education.

Absolute Priority 3: Promoting Civil Discourse on College and University Campuses.

Priority: Projects that are designed to promote civil discourse on college and university campuses through activities such as seminars, speaker series, conferences, debates, workshops training events, and other focused learning opportunities that include a range of views and embrace dialogue and understanding. These projects may include visiting faculty specifically supporting the development and delivery of these activities and contributing to the viewpoint diversity of the broader campus intellectual environment.

Competitive Preference Priorities:

Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priorities.

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional ten points to an application that meets each of these priorities.

Competitive Preference Priority 1:

Civic Institutes at Institutions of Higher Education. (0 or 10 points).

Priority: Projects implemented by, or in partnership with, institutions of higher education that have established independent academic units dedicated to civic thought, constitutional studies, American history, and economic liberty.

These institutes should demonstrate a sustained commitment to robust civil discourse, the liberal arts, and the study of American history and politics through primary documents.

Competitive Preference Priority 2:

Non-IHE Nonprofit Organizations That Educate Students to Promote Freedom and Engage in Civil Discourse. (0 or 10 points).

Priority: Projects implemented by, or in partnership with, private nonprofit organizations that do not meet the HEA definition of an institution of higher education and that educate students to promote freedom and engage in civil discourse. These entities must demonstrate experience working with higher education institutions on matters of civil discourse.

Absolute Priority 4: Supporting Institutions in Changing Accrediting Agencies.

Priority: Activities that directly support college and university efforts to change their current accrediting agency.

These activities may include, but are not limited to, staffing costs necessary to support a change in accreditors, document preparation costs, site-visit costs, and direct accreditation fees (limited to the initial term of accreditation up to 5 years).

Absolute Priority 5: Supporting the Creation of New Accrediting Agencies.

Priority: Projects that support the development and launch of new accrediting agencies seeking, or intending to seek, recognition from the Department under 20 U.S.C. 1099b.

Eligible activities may include convenings, development of accreditation standards and review processes, stakeholder and expert consultations, meeting and travel costs, technology and data system development, personnel costs, administrative expenses, and other costs directly related to establishing and operating a recognized accrediting agency.

Absolute Priority 6: Creation of New High-Quality Short-Term Programs.

Priority: Activities that directly support the development of new high-quality, short-term programs at institutions of higher education, including engaging employers, developing talent marketplaces, and integrating work-based learning components into short-term postsecondary programs. High-quality, short-term programs are defined as programs that meet the eligibility requirements of the Workforce Pell Grants program in Section 83002(b) of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including program length requirements and alignment with high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations, as determined by the Governor in the State in which the institution is located. This funding opportunity may be used to cover institutional costs associated with hiring program faculty and staff; purchasing equipment, machinery, production supplies and technology; coordinating with employers, State Workforce Development Boards, and other stakeholders, including convenings, meetings, and travel costs; improving classrooms, laboratories, and other instructional facilities; developing or enhancing partnerships with employers to facilitate industry alignment;

improving data collection and reporting capabilities to support Workforce Pell eligibility determinations; and meeting administrative expenses related to the design and development of new programs, including expenses related to data collection and validation.

Activities must be designed and executed in close collaboration with employers, to ensure that the resulting programs are responsive to industry demand.

Absolute Priority 7: Expansion of Existing High-Quality Short-Term Programs.

Priority: Activities that directly support the expansion of existing high-quality, short-term programs, including reforms to existing programs to meet Workforce Pell Grants eligibility requirements in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Such activities should also include engaging employers, developing talent marketplaces, and integrating

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:50 Nov 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1lo tte r on

D S

K

X Q

N

P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S

50865 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 12, 2025 / Notices work-based learning components into short-term postsecondary programs.

This funding opportunity may be used to cover institutional costs associated with hiring additional faculty and staff to increase program capacity;

purchasing additional equipment, machinery, production supplies, and technology; enhancing partnerships with employers to facilitate industry alignment; improving data collection and reporting capabilities to support Workforce Pell eligibility determinations; expanding the frequency of new student cohorts; or programmatic reforms needed to meet program requirements under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities.

Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority.

This is the first grant competition for this specific program (FIPSE Special Projects) under section 744(c)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by the HEOA and, therefore, this competition qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities will apply to grants awarded under this competition in FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Definitions: The terms ‘‘baseline,’’ ‘‘continuous improvement,’’ ‘‘evaluation,’’ ‘‘evidence-building,’’ ‘‘nonprofit,’’ ‘‘performance measure,’’ ‘‘performance target,’’ ‘‘quality data,’’ ‘‘relevant outcome’’ are defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Institution of higher education has the meaning as defined in section 101 of the HEA. ‘‘Artificial intelligence’’ or ‘‘AI’’ has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). ‘‘Work-based learning’’ has the meaning set forth in 20 U.S.C. 2302(55). In accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, we are establishing a definition for ‘‘Computer Science’’ and ‘‘Talent Marketplace.’’

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy means the technical knowledge, durable skills, and future ready attitudes required to thrive in a world influenced by AI. It enables learners to engage, create with, manage, and design AI, while critically evaluating its benefits, risks, and implications.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware and software designs, theories, computational thinking, coding, analytics, applications, machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information. In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation to the digital world. Computer science does not involve using computers for everyday tasks, such as browsing the internet or using tools like word processors, spreadsheets, or presentation software. Instead, it focuses on creating and developing technology, not just utilizing it.

Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and analyzing data about a project component’s implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.

Evaluation means an assessment using systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs, policies, practices, and organizations intended to assess their implementation, outcomes, effectiveness, or efficiency.

Evidence-building means a systematic plan for identifying and answering questions relevant to programs and policies through performance measurement, exploratory studies, or program evaluation.

In-demand Industry Sector or Occupation, as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), means (i) an industry sector that has a substantial current or potential impact (including through jobs that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate, and that contributes to the growth or stability of other supporting businesses, or the growth of other industry sectors; or (ii) an occupation that currently has or is projected to have a number of positions (including positions that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) in an industry sector so as to have a significant impact on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate.

Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity.

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

Quality data encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity of the information. ‘‘Utility’’ refers to how the data will be used, either for its intended use or other uses. ‘‘Objectivity’’ refers to data being accurate, complete, reliable, and unbiased. ‘‘Integrity’’ refers to the protection of data from being manipulated.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Talent marketplace means a digital, interconnected system of technologies maintained by a State or State Workforce Agency, as defined at 29 U.S.C. 3225a(a)(8), that

(a) is publicly available;

(b) includes an integrated:

(i) Learning and Employment Record;

(ii) Credential Registry; and

(iii) Skill-Based Job Description generator;

(c) utilizes artificial intelligence to enable students and jobseekers, employers, and education and training providers to transform, transcribe, and transact earned learning assertions, job descriptions, and degree and non-degree credentials into discrete competency statements; and

(d) may be curated into interoperable individual records of achievement and learning and employment recommendations.

Work-based learning is used in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 2302(55), to mean sustained interactions with industry or community professionals in real workplace settings, to the extent practicable, or simulated environments

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:50 Nov 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1lo tte r on

D S

K

X Q

N

P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E

50866 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 12, 2025 / Notices at an educational institution that foster in-depth, firsthand engagement with the tasks required in a given career field, that are aligned to curriculum and instruction.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138; 20 U.S.C. 1138c.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and

99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

II. Award Information Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds:

$167,000,000.

Of this amount, we estimate allocating across the areas of national need and absolute priorities as follows:

• Advancing AI in Education (Absolute Priorities 1 and 2)— $50,000,000, including $25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 1 and $25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 2.

• Promoting Civil Discourse (Absolute Priority 3)—$60,000,000.

• Promoting Accreditation Reform (Absolute Priorities 4 and 5)— $7,000,000, including $3,500,000 under Absolute Priority 4 and $3,500,000 under Absolute Priority 5.

• Capacity-building for high-quality, short-term programs (Absolute Priorities 6 and 7)—$50,000,000, including $25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 6 and $25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 7.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards (for the 48-month project period):

Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: $1,000,000–

$4,000,000 Absolute Priority 3: $1,000,000–

$4,000,000 Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: $600,000–

$1,000,000 Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: $1,000,000–

$4,000,000

Estimated Average Size of Awards (for the 48-month project period):

Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: $2,000,000 Absolute Priority 3: $2,000,000 Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: $800,000 Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: $2,000,000

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding the following amounts for each of these priorities for the entire project period of 48 months:

Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: $4,000,000 Absolute Priority 3: $4,000,000 Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: $1,000,000 Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: $4,000,000

Estimated Number of Awards:

Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: 25 Absolute Priority 3: 30 Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: 9 Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: 25.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA), consortia of such institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies including State higher education agencies as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1003(22). An eligible entity may submit only one (1) grant application under an area of national need as the lead applicant. An entity can be included as a partner in multiple applications.

Note: The eligible entity may apply to all four (4) areas of national need as the lead applicant but must submit a separate grant application for each area of national need.

Note: An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under 34 CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant’s certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program does not involve supplement-not-supplant funding requirements.

c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses the waiver authority of section 437(d)(1) of GEPA to limit a grantee’s indirect cost reimbursement to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. We are establishing this indirect cost limit for the FY 2025 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ list/ocfo/intro.html.

d. Administrative Cost Limitation:

This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants to directly carry out project activities described in its application to the following types of entities: IHEs and public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies including State higher education agencies as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1003(22).

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of the period of availability of the funds on December 31, 2025.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:50 Nov 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1lo tte r on

D S

K

X Q

N

P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant

50867 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 12, 2025 / Notices restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 35 pages (2) use the Standards outlined in the Common Instructions.

• Note: The Budget Information-Non- Construction Programs Form (ED 524) Sections A–C are not the same as the narrative response to the Budget section of the selection criteria.

5. Program Profile: Applicants must indicate in the abstract which area of national need the application addresses, how the proposed project meets the absolute priorities, and, if applicable, the competitive preference priorities.

The abstract narrative should identify the partner entities the applicant will be working with, the target population (e.g., faculty, staff, students, etc.), the proposed activities to be conducted during the 4-year performance period, and the anticipated results.

V. Application Review Information

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. Applicants should address each of the selection criteria separately for each proposed activity. The selection criteria are worth a total of 100 points;

the maximum score for each criterion is noted in parentheses.

(a) Significance. (Maximum 30 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project is innovative and likely to be more effective compared to other efforts to address a similar problem.