National Security Education Program (NSEP) Grants to Institutions of Higher Education, 28267-28270 [06-4532]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
206.2
206.3
206.4
206.5
paragraph (a)(1) and adding the
following sentence in its place to read
as follows:
§ 1.367(b)–6 Effective dates and
coordination rules.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1141(a).
(a) * * *
(1) * * * Section 1.367(b)–4(b)(1)(ii)
applies to all triangular reorganizations
and reorganizations described in section
368(a)(1)(G) and (a)(2)(D) occurring on
or after January 23, 2006, although
taxpayers may apply § 1.367(b)–
4(b)(1)(ii) to triangular B reorganizations
occurring on or after February 23, 2000,
that is not closed by the period of
limitations if done consistently with
respect to all such triangular B
reorganizations.* * *
*
*
*
*
*
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Eligibility.
Overall program emphasis.
Proposal development and review.
Final proposal process.
§ 206.1 Major characteristics of the NSEP
institutional grants program.
(a) The Institutional Grants Program
provides support in the form of grants
to U.S. institutions of higher education.
During the 1994–95 and 1995–96
academic years, a program of pilot
grants is being initiated with an annual
competition for grants held during the
spring of each year. Grants to
institutions will complement NSEP
scholarship and fellowship programs.
NSEP encourages the development of
programs and curricula which:
(1) Improves the quality and
Guy R. Traynor,
infrastructure of international
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
education;
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
(2) Addresses issues of national
Counsel (Procedures and Administration).
capacity; and
[FR Doc. 06–4533 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
(3) Defines innovative approaches to
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
issues not addressed by NSEP
scholarship and fellowship programs.
(b) The NSEP Grants Program is
designed to address a number of
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
important objectives critical to the
Office of the Secretary
United States:
(1) To equip Americans with an
32 CFR Part 206
understanding of less commonly taught
languages and cultures and enable them
National Security Education Program
to become integrally involved in global
(NSEP) Grants to Institutions of Higher issues.
Education
(2) To build a critical base of future
leaders in the marketplace and in
AGENCY: Department of Defense.
government service who have cultivated
ACTION: Final rule.
international relationships and worked
SUMMARY: This document republishes 32 and studied along-side foreign experts.
(3) To develop a cadre of
CFR part 206, ‘‘National Security
professionals with more than the
Education Program’’ which was
traditional knowledge of language and
removed from the CFR in error. No
culture who can use this ability to help
changes have been made.
the U.S. make sound decisions and deal
DATES: This rule is effective May 16,
effectively with global issues; and
2006.
(4) To enhance institutional capacity
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.
and increase the number of faculty who
Bynum 703–696–4970.
can educate U.S. citizens toward
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
achieving these goals.
removal was published in the Federal
(c) Grants will be awarded for initial
Register on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 (71
1- or 2-year periods. Potential follow-on
FR 26831).
commitments will be based on a
rigorous evaluation and assessment
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 206
process. Between 15 and 25 awards are
Colleges and universities, Grant
expected to be made in the first year
programs—education.
ranging from approximately $25,000 to
I Accordingly, 32 CFR part 206 is
$250,000. These are only estimates and
added to read as follows:
do not bind the NSEP to a specific
number of grants or to the amount of the
PART 206—NATIONAL SECURITY
grant.
EDUCATION PROGRAM (NSEP)
(d) The following key characteristics
GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF
will be emphasized in the NSEP
HIGHER EDUCATION
Institutional Grants Program:
(1) Programmatic in emphasis. The
Sec.
purpose of the grants is to address
206.1 Major characteristics of the NSEP
weaknesses and gaps in programs and
institutional grants program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28267
curricula. The grants should be used to
strengthen the national capacity in
international education. While
‘‘operational’’ support for already
existing centers and projects may be a
component of a grant, NSEP emphasizes
commitment of its limited resources to
projects that establish and improve
educational programs available to
students and teachers.
(2) Demand and requirements
oriented. Grants are designed to address
national needs. These needs must be
clearly articulated and defended in a
grant proposal. It must be clear that the
following questions are addressed:
(i) Who will benefit from the program
funded by the grant?
(ii) What need does the program
address?
(iii) How will this program augment
the capacity of the Federal Government
or of the field of education in areas
consistent with the objectives of the
NSEP? How does it fit the national
requirement?
(3) Cooperation and collaboration
among institutions is mandated in order
to ensure that a wider cross-section of
colleges and universities benefit from a
program funded under NSEP. NSEP is
committed to providing opportunities to
the widest cross-section of the higher
education population as is feasible.
Cooperation can be in the form of formal
consortia arrangements or less formal
but equally effective agreements among
institutions. Both vertical (among
different types of institutions) and
horizontal (among similar institutions
across functional areas) integration are
encouraged. Outreach to institutions
that do not normally benefit from such
programs is also strongly favored.
(4) Complementary to other Federal
programs such as Title VI of the Higher
Education Act. NSEP is designed to
address gaps and shortfalls in Higher
Education and to build and expand
national capacity. NSEP recognizes that
base capacity currently exists in some
foreign languages and area studies. It
also recognizes that funding shortfalls
and other factors have contributed to
tremendous gaps and weaknesses.
Funding for expansion of the
international education infrastructure
remains limited. Duplication of effort is
not affordable. NSEP encourages new
initiatives as well as expansion of
existing programs to increase supply in
cases where the demand cannot be met
and encourages efforts that increase
demand.
(5) NSEP encourages proposals that
address two categories of issues relating
to the mission of NSEP:
(i) Programs in specific foreign
languages, countries or areas; and/or
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
28268
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Programs addressing professional,
disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary
opportunities involving international
education.
(6) NSEP views student funding as
portable and hopes that universities will
develop ways to move students to
programs and to provide credit with
these programs. NSEP believes that
programs need to be developed that are
available to a wider cross-section of
students. Thus, they need to be ‘‘open’’
to students from other institutions.
Programs might also be ‘‘transportable’’
from one institution to another.
(7) NSEP emphasizes leveraging of
funds and cost-sharing in order to
maximize the impact of NSEP funding.
It encourages institutions to seek other
sources of funding to leverage against
NSEP funding and to commit
institutional resources in support of the
program as well. NSEP also emphasizes
burden sharing between the institution
and the Program. NSEP encourages
institutions to demonstrate a
commitment to international education
and to present a plan for how funding
for the proposed program will be
achieved over a 3–5 year period so that
NSEP can reduce its financial
commitment to programs. The funds
requested from NSEP should minimize
costs allocated to unassigned
institutional ‘‘overhead.’’ NSEP
institutional grants are assumed to be
for training programs. Consequently,
university/college indirect costs
associated with training programs
should be used as a general benchmark
for determining appropriate overhead
rates.
(8) NSEP encourages creativity and is
responsive to the needs of higher
education to expand the capacity to
provide more opportunities for quality
international education. We do not
suggest that the guidelines presented in
the grant solicitation will cover all
problems and issues. Quite to the
contrary, we encourage careful
consideration of issues confronting
international education in the U.S. and
thoughtful proposals that address these
issues, consistent with the overall
mission of the NSEP.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
§ 206.2
Eligibility.
Any accredited U.S. institution of
higher education, as defined by section
1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)), may apply for
and receive a grant. This includes 2- and
4-year colleges and universities, both
public and private. Other organizations,
associations, and agencies may be
included in proposals but may not be
direct recipients of a grant. Foreign
institutions may also be included in a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposal but may not be direct
recipients of a grant. Only U.S. citizens
and U.S. institutions may receive funds
through a grant awarded by the NSEP.
§ 206.3
Overall program emphasis.
(a) The NSEP grants to institutions
program focuses on two broad program
areas that reflect the challenges to
building the infrastructure for
international education in U.S. higher
education:
(1) Development and expansion to
quality programs in overseas locations.
(i) Programs that offer important
opportunities for U.S. students, both
undergraduate and graduate, to study in
critical areas under-represented by U.S.
students, and
(ii) Development of meaningful
competencies in foreign languages and
cultures.
(2) Development and implementation
of programs and curricula on U.S.
campuses that provide more
opportunities for study of foreign
languages and cultures and the
integration of these studies into overall
programs of study.
(b) Addressing the need for improving
study abroad infrastructure. The NSEP
encourages the study of foreign cultures
and languages typically neglected or
under-represented in higher education.
In the foreign language field these are
generally referred to as less commonly
taught languages. In area studies, these
are generally defined as non-Western
European in focus. An integral part of
any student’s international education is
a quality study abroad experience that
includes a significant portion devoted to
gaining functional competence in an
indigenous language and culture.
Unfortunately, there are only limited
opportunities to study abroad in many
foreign areas. In addition, many
programs lack a quality foreign language
component as well as significantly
experiential components. Historically,
more attention has been paid to the
development of programs in Western
Europe where the student demand has
been greater. NSEP hopes to encourage,
through institutional grants, the
development and/or expansion of
infrastructure for study abroad in
critical areas of the world where
capacity does not currently exist.
Programs are encouraged that:
(1) Expand program opportunities in
critical countries where limited
opportunities currently exist.
(2) Establish program opportunities in
critical countries where no
opportunities exist.
(3) Enhance meaningful opportunities
for foreign language and foreign culture
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
acquisition in conjunction with study
abroad.
(4) Create and expand study abroad
opportunities for students from diverse
disciplines. In all cases, grants to
develop study abroad infrastructure
must address issues of demand (how to
increase demand for study in the
proposed countries or regions) and
diversity (how to attract a diverse
student population to study in the
proposed countries or regions). Grants
may support start-up of programs or the
expansion of a program’s capacity to
benefit more and/or different student or
to improve the quality of study abroad
instruction. Proposals can address
issues concerning either or both issues.
of undergraduate and graduate
education.
(c) Addressing the infrastructure for
international education in U.S. higher
education. While studying abroad is an
integral part of becoming more
proficient in one’s understanding of
another culture and in becoming more
functionally competent in another
language, the NSEP also emphasizes the
development and expansion of
programs that address serious shortfalls
that provide a stronger domestic
program base in areas consistent with
the NSEP mission. The NSEP
encourages grant proposals that address
infrastructure issues. While not limited
to these areas, programs might address
the following issues:
(1) Enhancing foreign language skill
acquisition through innovative
curriculum development efforts. Such
efforts may involve intensive language
study designed for different types of
students. Less traditional approaches
should be considered as well as ways to
provide foreign language instruction for
the student who may not otherwise have
an opportunity to pursue such
instruction. Functional competency
should be stressed but defined as
meaningful for the particular discipline
or field.
(2) Expanding opportunities for
international education in diverse
disciplines and fields and in issues that
are cross-area or cross-national in
character. Efforts are encouraged that
offer opportunities for meaningful
international education for those in
fields where opportunities are not
generally available. There are many
fields and disciplines that are rapidly
becoming international in scope, yet the
educational process does not include a
meaningful international component. In
many cases this is due to a rigid
structure in the field itself that cannot
accommodate additional requirements,
such as language and culture study.
There are also issues that involve cross-
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
area or cross-national education or are
studied in comparative terms. Students
in these areas also need quality
opportunities in international
education.
(3) Provide opportunities for
programmatic studies throughout an
undergraduate or graduate career.
Students frequently study a foreign
language or pursue study abroad
opportunities as adjuncts to their overall
program of study. Innovations in
curriculum are needed to more
thoroughly integrate aspects of
international education into curriculum
throughout a student’s undergraduate or
graduate career. The NSEP encourages
institutions to address these overall
international education curriculum
issues in their proposals.
(4) Provide opportunities to increase
demand for study of foreign areas and
languages. Efforts to develop
educational programs that offer
innovative approaches to increasing
demand to include a meaningful
international component are
encouraged. Proposals are encouraged to
address issues of diversity: How to
attract students who have historically
not pursued opportunities involving
international education. Diversity
includes geographical, racial, ethnic,
and gender factors.
(5) Improve faculty credentials in
international education. Efforts to create
more opportunities for teachers to
become competent in foreign cultures
and languages are encouraged. While
NSEP is a higher education program, it
is interested in the potential dynamics
of collaborative efforts that recognize
the shared responsibility of all
educational levels for promoting
international education.
(6) Uses of new technologies. During
the last decade tremendous advances
have been made in the application of
new educational technologies. Such
technologies have enhanced our
capacity to improve instruction,
broaden access, and assess student
learning. NSEP’s objective is not to
support large technology oriented
projects. However, NSEP encourages
efforts that integrate innovative uses of
technology emphasizing how proposed
programs will have significance beyond
a local setting. Proposals that include
proposed uses of technology will be
required to demonstrate detailed
knowledge of the technology, how it is
to be developed and applied and how
student learning will be impacted.
§ 206.4
Proposal development and review.
The purpose of this section is to
explain the NSEP review process. [Note:
A number of important approaches to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposal development and review have
been adapted from guidelines developed
by the Department of Education’s Office
of Postsecondary Education for its
‘‘Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)’’.]
This information if intended to aid
institutions in the development of
proposals and to provide guidance
concerning the criteria that may be used
in reviewing and evaluating proposals.
(a) The grants to institutions program
will be administered by the National
Security Education Program Office
(NSEPO). However, the NSEPO will
function as an administrative office
much in the same manner as the
Institute of International Education and
the Academy for Educational
Development function in administering
NSEP scholarship and fellowship
programs, respectively. The NSEPO will
not review or evaluate proposals. The
proposals will be reviewed and
evaluated by national screening panels.
(b) The NSEP will use a two-stage
review process in order to evaluate a
broad range of proposal ideas. In the
first stage, applicants will submit a fivepage summary (double-spaced) of their
proposal. An institution may submit
more than one proposal, but each
proposal should be submitted and will
be evaluated separately and
independently.
(c) NSEP expects competition for
grants to be intense. By implementing a
two-stage process, potential grantees are
given an opportunity to present their
ideas without creating a paperwork
burden on both the proposal authors
and the reviewers.
(d) The preliminary review process.
The review of preliminary proposals
will be undertaken by panels of external
reviewers, not members of the NSEPO.
Panels of not less than three will be
assembled to review preliminary
proposals. Panel members will be drawn
primarily from faculty and
administration in higher education but
might also include representatives from
the research, business, and government
communities. Every effort will be made
to ensure balance (geographical, ethnic,
gender, institutional type, subject
matter) across the entire competition.
(e) Panel members will reflect the
nature of the grants program. Each panel
will include a recognized expert in a
field of international education. Other
panelists may include experts in area
studies, foreign language education, and
other fields and disciplines with an
international focus.
(f) Preliminary proposals will be
reviewed according to a set of criteria
developed in consultation with
representatives from higher education,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28269
and provided to the panels. The
applicant shall, at a minimum, deal
with the following issues in the
preliminary proposal:
(1) How the proposal addresses issues
of national capacity in international
education.
(2) What area(s), language(s), and
discipline(s) the proposal addresses and
the importance of these to U.S. national
capacity.
(3) What the applicant is proposing to
do.
(4) How the proposal deals with the
key characteristics of the NSEP.
(5) Demonstration of thorough
knowledge of the state of the art in the
particular area of the proposal and how
this proposal develops or builds
capacity, not duplicates existing
capacity.
(g) The applicant must also include a
budget estimate. This budget estimate,
for the first year of the proposal, must
include the following:
(1) A summary of anticipated direct
costs including professional salaries,
funds for students, travel, materials and
supplies, consultants, etc., and how or
why these costs are needed.
(2) An estimate of institutional
indirect costs. The budget estimate must
also indicate whether funding is also
being requested for a second year and,
if so, an estimate of the amount to be
requested.
(h) Panelists will review and rank
proposals and forward their
recommendations to the NSEPO.
NSEPO will review and analyze these
recommendations and inform all
applicants of decisions.
§ 206.5
Final proposal process.
NSEPO will provide detailed
comments on proposals to all applicants
who are invited to prepare a final
proposal.
(a) Final proposals should be limited
to no more than 25 double-spaced
pages. Proposals will be reviewed by
national panels constructed similarly to
those designed to review preliminary
proposals. In addition to a field review
process, panelists will be assembled in
Washington D.C. to discuss and review
the independent and competing merits
of proposals.
(b) Proposals will be evaluated in two
basic categories:
(1) Proposals that address study
abroad infrastructure and
(2) Proposals that address domestic
infrastructure. Should proposals deal
with both of these issues, they will be
evaluated in a third category. This
grouping of proposals will ensure that
all categories of proposals receive
funding consideration.
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
28270
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(c) In general, final proposals will be
considered on the following selection
criteria:
(1) Importance of the problem. Each
proposal will be evaluated according to
the merit of how it addresses issue(s) of
national capacity. The proposal must
articulate the importance of the problem
it addresses, how the proposal addresses
issues of national capacity in
international education, and how it is
consistent with the objectives of the
NSEP.
(2) Importance of proposed foreign
language(s), foreign area(s), field(s) or
discipline(s). The proposal will be
evaluated according to how well it
articulates the need for programs in the
proposed areas, languages, fields, or
disciplines.
(3) Identification of need and gaps/
shortfalls. The proposal will be
evaluated according to its
persuasiveness in identifying where the
needs exist and where serious shortfalls
exist in the capacity to fill the need. The
proposal should clearly identify why
these gaps exist and provide a strong
indication of familiarity with the state of
the field in the proposal area.
(4) Cost effectiveness. Proposals will
be evaluated on the basis of
‘‘educational value for the dollar.’’
NSEP is interested in funding proposals
in areas where other funding is limited
or in areas where NSEP funding can
significantly augment or complement
other sources. NSEP is not interested in
replacing funds available from other
sources or in duplicating other efforts.
Also, NSEP is interested in projects
whose dollar levels and long-range
budget plans provide for realistic
continuation by the grantee institution
and adaptation by other institutions.
NSEP is interested in proposed
approaches to leveraging other funds
against the proposed project.
(5) Evaluation plans. Proposals will
be evaluated on their approach to
measuring impact. What impact will the
proposed program have on national
capacity? How will the proposed
program deal with assessing language
and foreign cultural competency? In the
case of study abroad programs, how will
the success and impact of study abroad
experiences be assessed. Proposals
should not defer the consideration of
these issues to a latter stage of the effort.
Evaluation and assessment should be an
integral part of the entire proposal
effort.
(6) Prospects for wider impact.
Proposals must address national needs
and will be evaluated according to how
well they are likely to address these
needs. What component of the higher
education community does the proposal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
address? How diverse a student
population will the proposed program
address? What applications to other
institutions will be made available,
either directly or indirectly, because of
the proposed program?
(7) Capacity and commitment of the
applicant. The proposal will be
evaluated according to the evidence
provided on the commitment of the
institution, and other institutions, to the
proposed project. What other
institutions are involved and what is
their commitment? If there are
commitments from foreign institutions,
what is the evidence of this
commitment? Are their plans for the
institution to integrate the efforts of the
proposed program into the educational
process? What plans are there for
eventual self-support? As with many
other similar programs, NSEP is
particularly interested in the degree to
which the institution is willing to bear
a reasonable share of the direct and
indirect costs of the proposed project.
(d) Applicants should also indicate if
they currently receive or are seeking
support from other sources. Applicants
should indicate why support from NSEP
is appropriate, if other sources are also
being sought.
Dated: May 10, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 06–4532 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0272; FRL–8159–7]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality,
Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality, and Pinal
County Air Quality Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ), Pima County
Department of Environmental Quality
(PCDEQ), and Pinal County Air Quality
Control District (PCAQCD) portions of
the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern
particulate matter (PM–10) emissions
from open burning. We are approving
local rules that regulate this emission
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
source under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on July 17,
2006 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 15,
2006. If we receive such comments, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public
that this direct final rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0272, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al
Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28267-28270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4532]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 206
National Security Education Program (NSEP) Grants to Institutions
of Higher Education
AGENCY: Department of Defense.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document republishes 32 CFR part 206, ``National Security
Education Program'' which was removed from the CFR in error. No changes
have been made.
DATES: This rule is effective May 16, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Bynum 703-696-4970.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The removal was published in the Federal
Register on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26831).
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 206
Colleges and universities, Grant programs--education.
0
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 206 is added to read as follows:
PART 206--NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM (NSEP) GRANTS TO
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Sec.
206.1 Major characteristics of the NSEP institutional grants
program.
206.2 Eligibility.
206.3 Overall program emphasis.
206.4 Proposal development and review.
206.5 Final proposal process.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1141(a).
Sec. 206.1 Major characteristics of the NSEP institutional grants
program.
(a) The Institutional Grants Program provides support in the form
of grants to U.S. institutions of higher education. During the 1994-95
and 1995-96 academic years, a program of pilot grants is being
initiated with an annual competition for grants held during the spring
of each year. Grants to institutions will complement NSEP scholarship
and fellowship programs. NSEP encourages the development of programs
and curricula which:
(1) Improves the quality and infrastructure of international
education;
(2) Addresses issues of national capacity; and
(3) Defines innovative approaches to issues not addressed by NSEP
scholarship and fellowship programs.
(b) The NSEP Grants Program is designed to address a number of
important objectives critical to the United States:
(1) To equip Americans with an understanding of less commonly
taught languages and cultures and enable them to become integrally
involved in global issues.
(2) To build a critical base of future leaders in the marketplace
and in government service who have cultivated international
relationships and worked and studied along-side foreign experts.
(3) To develop a cadre of professionals with more than the
traditional knowledge of language and culture who can use this ability
to help the U.S. make sound decisions and deal effectively with global
issues; and
(4) To enhance institutional capacity and increase the number of
faculty who can educate U.S. citizens toward achieving these goals.
(c) Grants will be awarded for initial 1- or 2-year periods.
Potential follow-on commitments will be based on a rigorous evaluation
and assessment process. Between 15 and 25 awards are expected to be
made in the first year ranging from approximately $25,000 to $250,000.
These are only estimates and do not bind the NSEP to a specific number
of grants or to the amount of the grant.
(d) The following key characteristics will be emphasized in the
NSEP Institutional Grants Program:
(1) Programmatic in emphasis. The purpose of the grants is to
address weaknesses and gaps in programs and curricula. The grants
should be used to strengthen the national capacity in international
education. While ``operational'' support for already existing centers
and projects may be a component of a grant, NSEP emphasizes commitment
of its limited resources to projects that establish and improve
educational programs available to students and teachers.
(2) Demand and requirements oriented. Grants are designed to
address national needs. These needs must be clearly articulated and
defended in a grant proposal. It must be clear that the following
questions are addressed:
(i) Who will benefit from the program funded by the grant?
(ii) What need does the program address?
(iii) How will this program augment the capacity of the Federal
Government or of the field of education in areas consistent with the
objectives of the NSEP? How does it fit the national requirement?
(3) Cooperation and collaboration among institutions is mandated in
order to ensure that a wider cross-section of colleges and universities
benefit from a program funded under NSEP. NSEP is committed to
providing opportunities to the widest cross-section of the higher
education population as is feasible. Cooperation can be in the form of
formal consortia arrangements or less formal but equally effective
agreements among institutions. Both vertical (among different types of
institutions) and horizontal (among similar institutions across
functional areas) integration are encouraged. Outreach to institutions
that do not normally benefit from such programs is also strongly
favored.
(4) Complementary to other Federal programs such as Title VI of the
Higher Education Act. NSEP is designed to address gaps and shortfalls
in Higher Education and to build and expand national capacity. NSEP
recognizes that base capacity currently exists in some foreign
languages and area studies. It also recognizes that funding shortfalls
and other factors have contributed to tremendous gaps and weaknesses.
Funding for expansion of the international education infrastructure
remains limited. Duplication of effort is not affordable. NSEP
encourages new initiatives as well as expansion of existing programs to
increase supply in cases where the demand cannot be met and encourages
efforts that increase demand.
(5) NSEP encourages proposals that address two categories of issues
relating to the mission of NSEP:
(i) Programs in specific foreign languages, countries or areas;
and/or
[[Page 28268]]
(ii) Programs addressing professional, disciplinary and/or
interdisciplinary opportunities involving international education.
(6) NSEP views student funding as portable and hopes that
universities will develop ways to move students to programs and to
provide credit with these programs. NSEP believes that programs need to
be developed that are available to a wider cross-section of students.
Thus, they need to be ``open'' to students from other institutions.
Programs might also be ``transportable'' from one institution to
another.
(7) NSEP emphasizes leveraging of funds and cost-sharing in order
to maximize the impact of NSEP funding. It encourages institutions to
seek other sources of funding to leverage against NSEP funding and to
commit institutional resources in support of the program as well. NSEP
also emphasizes burden sharing between the institution and the Program.
NSEP encourages institutions to demonstrate a commitment to
international education and to present a plan for how funding for the
proposed program will be achieved over a 3-5 year period so that NSEP
can reduce its financial commitment to programs. The funds requested
from NSEP should minimize costs allocated to unassigned institutional
``overhead.'' NSEP institutional grants are assumed to be for training
programs. Consequently, university/college indirect costs associated
with training programs should be used as a general benchmark for
determining appropriate overhead rates.
(8) NSEP encourages creativity and is responsive to the needs of
higher education to expand the capacity to provide more opportunities
for quality international education. We do not suggest that the
guidelines presented in the grant solicitation will cover all problems
and issues. Quite to the contrary, we encourage careful consideration
of issues confronting international education in the U.S. and
thoughtful proposals that address these issues, consistent with the
overall mission of the NSEP.
Sec. 206.2 Eligibility.
Any accredited U.S. institution of higher education, as defined by
section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1141(a)), may apply for and receive a grant. This includes 2- and 4-
year colleges and universities, both public and private. Other
organizations, associations, and agencies may be included in proposals
but may not be direct recipients of a grant. Foreign institutions may
also be included in a proposal but may not be direct recipients of a
grant. Only U.S. citizens and U.S. institutions may receive funds
through a grant awarded by the NSEP.
Sec. 206.3 Overall program emphasis.
(a) The NSEP grants to institutions program focuses on two broad
program areas that reflect the challenges to building the
infrastructure for international education in U.S. higher education:
(1) Development and expansion to quality programs in overseas
locations.
(i) Programs that offer important opportunities for U.S. students,
both undergraduate and graduate, to study in critical areas under-
represented by U.S. students, and
(ii) Development of meaningful competencies in foreign languages
and cultures.
(2) Development and implementation of programs and curricula on
U.S. campuses that provide more opportunities for study of foreign
languages and cultures and the integration of these studies into
overall programs of study.
(b) Addressing the need for improving study abroad infrastructure.
The NSEP encourages the study of foreign cultures and languages
typically neglected or under-represented in higher education. In the
foreign language field these are generally referred to as less commonly
taught languages. In area studies, these are generally defined as non-
Western European in focus. An integral part of any student's
international education is a quality study abroad experience that
includes a significant portion devoted to gaining functional competence
in an indigenous language and culture. Unfortunately, there are only
limited opportunities to study abroad in many foreign areas. In
addition, many programs lack a quality foreign language component as
well as significantly experiential components. Historically, more
attention has been paid to the development of programs in Western
Europe where the student demand has been greater. NSEP hopes to
encourage, through institutional grants, the development and/or
expansion of infrastructure for study abroad in critical areas of the
world where capacity does not currently exist. Programs are encouraged
that:
(1) Expand program opportunities in critical countries where
limited opportunities currently exist.
(2) Establish program opportunities in critical countries where no
opportunities exist.
(3) Enhance meaningful opportunities for foreign language and
foreign culture acquisition in conjunction with study abroad.
(4) Create and expand study abroad opportunities for students from
diverse disciplines. In all cases, grants to develop study abroad
infrastructure must address issues of demand (how to increase demand
for study in the proposed countries or regions) and diversity (how to
attract a diverse student population to study in the proposed countries
or regions). Grants may support start-up of programs or the expansion
of a program's capacity to benefit more and/or different student or to
improve the quality of study abroad instruction. Proposals can address
issues concerning either or both issues. of undergraduate and graduate
education.
(c) Addressing the infrastructure for international education in
U.S. higher education. While studying abroad is an integral part of
becoming more proficient in one's understanding of another culture and
in becoming more functionally competent in another language, the NSEP
also emphasizes the development and expansion of programs that address
serious shortfalls that provide a stronger domestic program base in
areas consistent with the NSEP mission. The NSEP encourages grant
proposals that address infrastructure issues. While not limited to
these areas, programs might address the following issues:
(1) Enhancing foreign language skill acquisition through innovative
curriculum development efforts. Such efforts may involve intensive
language study designed for different types of students. Less
traditional approaches should be considered as well as ways to provide
foreign language instruction for the student who may not otherwise have
an opportunity to pursue such instruction. Functional competency should
be stressed but defined as meaningful for the particular discipline or
field.
(2) Expanding opportunities for international education in diverse
disciplines and fields and in issues that are cross-area or cross-
national in character. Efforts are encouraged that offer opportunities
for meaningful international education for those in fields where
opportunities are not generally available. There are many fields and
disciplines that are rapidly becoming international in scope, yet the
educational process does not include a meaningful international
component. In many cases this is due to a rigid structure in the field
itself that cannot accommodate additional requirements, such as
language and culture study. There are also issues that involve cross-
[[Page 28269]]
area or cross-national education or are studied in comparative terms.
Students in these areas also need quality opportunities in
international education.
(3) Provide opportunities for programmatic studies throughout an
undergraduate or graduate career. Students frequently study a foreign
language or pursue study abroad opportunities as adjuncts to their
overall program of study. Innovations in curriculum are needed to more
thoroughly integrate aspects of international education into curriculum
throughout a student's undergraduate or graduate career. The NSEP
encourages institutions to address these overall international
education curriculum issues in their proposals.
(4) Provide opportunities to increase demand for study of foreign
areas and languages. Efforts to develop educational programs that offer
innovative approaches to increasing demand to include a meaningful
international component are encouraged. Proposals are encouraged to
address issues of diversity: How to attract students who have
historically not pursued opportunities involving international
education. Diversity includes geographical, racial, ethnic, and gender
factors.
(5) Improve faculty credentials in international education. Efforts
to create more opportunities for teachers to become competent in
foreign cultures and languages are encouraged. While NSEP is a higher
education program, it is interested in the potential dynamics of
collaborative efforts that recognize the shared responsibility of all
educational levels for promoting international education.
(6) Uses of new technologies. During the last decade tremendous
advances have been made in the application of new educational
technologies. Such technologies have enhanced our capacity to improve
instruction, broaden access, and assess student learning. NSEP's
objective is not to support large technology oriented projects.
However, NSEP encourages efforts that integrate innovative uses of
technology emphasizing how proposed programs will have significance
beyond a local setting. Proposals that include proposed uses of
technology will be required to demonstrate detailed knowledge of the
technology, how it is to be developed and applied and how student
learning will be impacted.
Sec. 206.4 Proposal development and review.
The purpose of this section is to explain the NSEP review process.
[Note: A number of important approaches to proposal development and
review have been adapted from guidelines developed by the Department of
Education's Office of Postsecondary Education for its ``Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)''.] This information if
intended to aid institutions in the development of proposals and to
provide guidance concerning the criteria that may be used in reviewing
and evaluating proposals.
(a) The grants to institutions program will be administered by the
National Security Education Program Office (NSEPO). However, the NSEPO
will function as an administrative office much in the same manner as
the Institute of International Education and the Academy for
Educational Development function in administering NSEP scholarship and
fellowship programs, respectively. The NSEPO will not review or
evaluate proposals. The proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by
national screening panels.
(b) The NSEP will use a two-stage review process in order to
evaluate a broad range of proposal ideas. In the first stage,
applicants will submit a five-page summary (double-spaced) of their
proposal. An institution may submit more than one proposal, but each
proposal should be submitted and will be evaluated separately and
independently.
(c) NSEP expects competition for grants to be intense. By
implementing a two-stage process, potential grantees are given an
opportunity to present their ideas without creating a paperwork burden
on both the proposal authors and the reviewers.
(d) The preliminary review process. The review of preliminary
proposals will be undertaken by panels of external reviewers, not
members of the NSEPO. Panels of not less than three will be assembled
to review preliminary proposals. Panel members will be drawn primarily
from faculty and administration in higher education but might also
include representatives from the research, business, and government
communities. Every effort will be made to ensure balance (geographical,
ethnic, gender, institutional type, subject matter) across the entire
competition.
(e) Panel members will reflect the nature of the grants program.
Each panel will include a recognized expert in a field of international
education. Other panelists may include experts in area studies, foreign
language education, and other fields and disciplines with an
international focus.
(f) Preliminary proposals will be reviewed according to a set of
criteria developed in consultation with representatives from higher
education, and provided to the panels. The applicant shall, at a
minimum, deal with the following issues in the preliminary proposal:
(1) How the proposal addresses issues of national capacity in
international education.
(2) What area(s), language(s), and discipline(s) the proposal
addresses and the importance of these to U.S. national capacity.
(3) What the applicant is proposing to do.
(4) How the proposal deals with the key characteristics of the
NSEP.
(5) Demonstration of thorough knowledge of the state of the art in
the particular area of the proposal and how this proposal develops or
builds capacity, not duplicates existing capacity.
(g) The applicant must also include a budget estimate. This budget
estimate, for the first year of the proposal, must include the
following:
(1) A summary of anticipated direct costs including professional
salaries, funds for students, travel, materials and supplies,
consultants, etc., and how or why these costs are needed.
(2) An estimate of institutional indirect costs. The budget
estimate must also indicate whether funding is also being requested for
a second year and, if so, an estimate of the amount to be requested.
(h) Panelists will review and rank proposals and forward their
recommendations to the NSEPO. NSEPO will review and analyze these
recommendations and inform all applicants of decisions.
Sec. 206.5 Final proposal process.
NSEPO will provide detailed comments on proposals to all applicants
who are invited to prepare a final proposal.
(a) Final proposals should be limited to no more than 25 double-
spaced pages. Proposals will be reviewed by national panels constructed
similarly to those designed to review preliminary proposals. In
addition to a field review process, panelists will be assembled in
Washington D.C. to discuss and review the independent and competing
merits of proposals.
(b) Proposals will be evaluated in two basic categories:
(1) Proposals that address study abroad infrastructure and
(2) Proposals that address domestic infrastructure. Should
proposals deal with both of these issues, they will be evaluated in a
third category. This grouping of proposals will ensure that all
categories of proposals receive funding consideration.
[[Page 28270]]
(c) In general, final proposals will be considered on the following
selection criteria:
(1) Importance of the problem. Each proposal will be evaluated
according to the merit of how it addresses issue(s) of national
capacity. The proposal must articulate the importance of the problem it
addresses, how the proposal addresses issues of national capacity in
international education, and how it is consistent with the objectives
of the NSEP.
(2) Importance of proposed foreign language(s), foreign area(s),
field(s) or discipline(s). The proposal will be evaluated according to
how well it articulates the need for programs in the proposed areas,
languages, fields, or disciplines.
(3) Identification of need and gaps/shortfalls. The proposal will
be evaluated according to its persuasiveness in identifying where the
needs exist and where serious shortfalls exist in the capacity to fill
the need. The proposal should clearly identify why these gaps exist and
provide a strong indication of familiarity with the state of the field
in the proposal area.
(4) Cost effectiveness. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of
``educational value for the dollar.'' NSEP is interested in funding
proposals in areas where other funding is limited or in areas where
NSEP funding can significantly augment or complement other sources.
NSEP is not interested in replacing funds available from other sources
or in duplicating other efforts. Also, NSEP is interested in projects
whose dollar levels and long-range budget plans provide for realistic
continuation by the grantee institution and adaptation by other
institutions. NSEP is interested in proposed approaches to leveraging
other funds against the proposed project.
(5) Evaluation plans. Proposals will be evaluated on their approach
to measuring impact. What impact will the proposed program have on
national capacity? How will the proposed program deal with assessing
language and foreign cultural competency? In the case of study abroad
programs, how will the success and impact of study abroad experiences
be assessed. Proposals should not defer the consideration of these
issues to a latter stage of the effort. Evaluation and assessment
should be an integral part of the entire proposal effort.
(6) Prospects for wider impact. Proposals must address national
needs and will be evaluated according to how well they are likely to
address these needs. What component of the higher education community
does the proposal address? How diverse a student population will the
proposed program address? What applications to other institutions will
be made available, either directly or indirectly, because of the
proposed program?
(7) Capacity and commitment of the applicant. The proposal will be
evaluated according to the evidence provided on the commitment of the
institution, and other institutions, to the proposed project. What
other institutions are involved and what is their commitment? If there
are commitments from foreign institutions, what is the evidence of this
commitment? Are their plans for the institution to integrate the
efforts of the proposed program into the educational process? What
plans are there for eventual self-support? As with many other similar
programs, NSEP is particularly interested in the degree to which the
institution is willing to bear a reasonable share of the direct and
indirect costs of the proposed project.
(d) Applicants should also indicate if they currently receive or
are seeking support from other sources. Applicants should indicate why
support from NSEP is appropriate, if other sources are also being
sought.
Dated: May 10, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 06-4532 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M