Proposed Priorities-National Resource Centers Program, 15077-15081 [2014-05927]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15077-15081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket No. ED-2014-OPE-0038; CFDA Number: 84.015A.]


Proposed Priorities--National Resource Centers Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed Priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 
proposes two priorities for the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program 
administered by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) 
Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this 
action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national 
need. We intend the priority to address a gap in the types of 
institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted 
from the instruction, training, and outreach available at national 
resource centers and to address a shortage in the number of teachers 
entering the teaching profession with international education and world 
language training certification and credentials.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 
20202-2700.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl E. Gibbs. Telephone: (202) 502-
7634 or by email: cheryl.gibbs@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments on these 
proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect 
in developing the final priorities, we urge you to identify clearly the 
specific priority that each comment addresses.

[[Page 15078]]

    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirements of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these 
proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice in room 6083, 1990 K St. NW., Washington, 
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 
Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The NRC Program provides grants to institutions 
of higher education or consortia of such institutions to establish, 
strengthen, and operate comprehensive and undergraduate foreign 
language and area or international studies centers that will be 
national resources for: (a) Teaching of any modern foreign language; 
(b) instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of 
areas, regions, or countries in which the modern language is commonly 
used; (c) research and training in international studies and the 
international and foreign language aspects of professional and other 
fields of study; and (d) instruction and research on issues in world 
affairs that concern one or more countries.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1122.

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 656.
    Proposed Priorities: This notice contains two proposed priorities.
    Background:
    The NRC Program is authorized by section 602 of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Through this program, the 
Department makes awards to institutions of higher education, or 
consortia of institutions of higher education, to establish, 
strengthen, or operate nationally recognized foreign language and area 
or international studies centers or programs. Grant awards may be used 
to support undergraduate centers or comprehensive centers that provide 
training at undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels.
    The objective of the NRC Program is to increase the national 
capacity in world language instruction and learning, instruction and 
research on issues in world affairs, and instruction, outreach, and 
teacher training in fields needed to provide full understanding of 
areas, regions, or countries in which the world languages are used, 
among other allowable activities.
    We are proposing two priorities to address a gap in the types of 
institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted 
from the instruction, training, and outreach available at national 
resource centers and to address a shortage in the number of teachers 
entering the teaching profession with international education and world 
language training certification and credentials.
    We first propose a priority for applications that propose 
collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) or a 
community college. Currently the National Resource Centers collaborate 
with MSIs and community colleges only ad hoc. This, however, limits the 
extent to which the instruction, training, and professional development 
resources are regularly available to and accessed by students and 
faculty at MSIs and community colleges. We believe that by requiring 
NRC institutions and MSIs and community colleges to jointly plan, 
conduct, and implement activities, the international programming, 
student instruction, career advising, and faculty development 
opportunities on all campuses will be strengthened and expanded. These 
collaborations also enhance institutional capacity to recruit students 
into international studies and foreign language training.
    Research data indicate that minority students are less likely to 
have access to, or consider academic programs that provide the 
requisite training for careers in international service, including 
study abroad and area studies. (Tillman, ``Diversity in Education 
Workshop Summary Report'', September, 2010.)
    Among the barriers preventing these students from pursuing 
international studies are a lack of exposure to international 
opportunities, and lack of access to information, including information 
about international careers. (Belyavina and Bhandari, ``Increasing 
Diversity in International Careers: Economic Challenges and 
Solutions'', International Institute of Education, November 2011.)
    We believe that by specifying the types of institutional 
collaborations that the National Resource Centers must engage in, and 
the types of collaborative activities they must conduct, the activities 
are more likely both to have a meaningful and measurable effect on 
students and faculty at MSIs and community colleges and be 
institutionalized and sustained. We also believe that successful 
institutional collaborations of this nature will increase the access of 
traditionally underserved populations to opportunities for 
international and foreign language learning and the visibility of 
international and foreign language programs and activities on the 
campuses of MSIs and community colleges. For this priority, we propose 
a definition of ``Minority-Serving Institution'' that would include 
institutions eligible to receive assistance under Sec. Sec.  316 
through 320 of part A of Title III, under part B of Title III, or under 
Title V of the HEA.
    The Department would use this definition because both Title III and 
Title V programs target college student populations that are 
underrepresented in international education. The Department would like 
to increase the representation of these groups through collaborations 
between Title III/Title V institutions and Title VI institutions.
    Title III reflects our national interest to provide support to 
those institutions of higher education that serve low-income and 
minority students so that equality of access and quality of 
postsecondary education opportunities may be enhanced for all students. 
Under the Title III, institutions may receive designation of 
eligibility depending on their submitted institutional evidence 
documenting their student demographic data.
    Title V targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) because of the 
high percentage of Hispanic Americans who are at risk of not enrolling 
in or graduating from institutions of higher education. The law was 
designed to reduce disparities between the enrollment of non-Hispanic 
white students and Hispanic students in postsecondary education, which 
continue to rise.
    Because the purpose of this priority to extend the reach of NRCs to 
institutions that have benefitted less from the instruction, training, 
and outreach the NRCs make available, we propose a definition of 
``community college'' for use with this priority that is broader than 
the definition in the HEA. The definition of ``junior or community 
college'' in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)) excludes 
institutions that

[[Page 15079]]

award bachelor's and graduate degrees. For the purpose of this 
priority, we propose to include in the definition of ``community 
college'' institutions that offer bachelor's or graduate degrees if 
more than 50 percent of the degrees and certificates they award are 
degrees and certificates that are not bachelor's or graduate degrees. 
We propose this definition to include institutions that serve 
significant numbers of students enrolled in programs traditionally 
offered by community colleges, such as associate degree and certificate 
programs. We propose a second priority for applicants that propose to 
collaborate with schools or colleges of education. This priority is 
designed to help address the shortage of qualified teachers who are 
trained, certified, and credentialed to teach world languages in 
kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools. The priority also is 
intended to contribute to an increase in the number of prospective 
teachers who have access to international courses, training, and 
cultural experiences that will help to enhance their instructional 
practice. A study commissioned by the National Research Council of the 
National Academies determined that the lack of international and global 
teacher preparation curricula and advanced language training programs 
represent major hurdles in addressing the current critical shortage of 
language teachers. The committee called for greater collaboration among 
schools of education and language, international, and area studies 
departments to provide better training for language teachers 
(International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing 
America's Future, The National Academies Press, 2007).
    One of the invitational priorities for the current FY 2010-2013 NRC 
grant cycle encourages the NRCs to collaborate with all professional 
schools on their campuses, including schools of business, law, public 
health, journalism, and education. We propose the second priority to 
focus specifically on collaborations with the college or school of 
education on the NRC campus. This targeted collaboration is designed to 
help provide future teachers with the training required to teach world 
languages and international studies courses. This cadre of teachers is 
vital to teaching students to live and work in a world with diverse 
peoples, languages, and cultures that are ever more interconnected.
    This priority both supports the teacher training purpose of the NRC 
Program and contributes to the vision for teaching and leading 
reflected in the Department's Blueprint for Recognizing Educational 
Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT), 
which aims, among other things, to elevate and transform teaching and 
learning so that all students are prepared to meet the demands of the 
21st century. Research compiled during the preparation of the RESPECT 
blueprint concluded that students with effective teachers perform at 
higher levels, and have higher graduation rates, higher college-going 
rates, higher levels of civic participation, and higher lifetime 
earnings. The research also concluded that attracting a high-performing 
and diverse pool of talented individuals to become teachers is a 
critical priority (https://www2.ed.gov/documents/respect/blueprint-for-respect.pdf).
    This priority would promote the increased integration of 
international, intercultural, and global perspectives in teacher 
education and would enhance the capabilities of teachers to provide 
instruction in foreign languages and international and area studies.
    The priorities are: Proposed Priority 1: Applications that propose 
significant and sustained collaborative activities with a Minority-
Serving Institution (MSI) (as defined in this notice) or a community 
college (as defined in this notice). These activities must be designed 
to incorporate international, intercultural, or global dimensions into 
the curriculum of the MSI or community college, and to improve foreign 
language, area, and international studies or international business 
instruction on the MSI or community college campus.
    For the purpose of this priority:
    Community college means an institution that meets the definition in 
section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of 
higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 
1001)) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50 percent of 
which are not bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent) or master's, 
professional, or other advanced degrees.
    Minority-Serving Institution means an institution that is eligible 
to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of Title 
III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
    Proposed Priority 2: Applications that propose collaborative 
activities with schools or colleges of education to support the 
integration of an international, intercultural, or global dimension and 
world languages into teacher education and to promote the preparation 
and credentialing of more foreign language teachers in less commonly 
taught languages.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c) (3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c) (2) (i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c) (2) 
(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c) (1)).
    Final Priorities:
    We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, 
subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an 
action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);

[[Page 15080]]

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these proposed priorities only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 
The Department plans to revise the information collection for the NRC 
Program by including more detailed guidance to assist applicants in 
responding to the Impact and Evaluation selection criterion in 
Sec. Sec.  656.21 and 656.22 of the NRC Program regulations and by 
requiring a new performance measure form (PMF). The PMF will require 
applicants to identify project goals and project-specific measures for 
the NRC Program project they propose to conduct. Information will also 
be provided on how applicants, should they become grantees, will meet 
and report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 
measures that have been developed for the NRC Program.
    The IFLE Office developed this PMF so that applicants may propose 
projects with high-quality implementation plans at the outset and will 
require them to lay a stronger foundation for reporting progress and 
performance results. Additionally, the form will provide the Department 
information that is more useful and valid in demonstrating to Congress 
and other stakeholders the impact of NRC projects.
    And finally, the PMF is designed to provide a standardized format 
that applicants can use to present performance information in their 
applications. The PMF requests the following: (a) Project goal 
statement; (b) Performance measure; (c) Project activity; (d) Data/
Indices; (e) Frequency of collection; (f) Data source; and (g) Baseline 
and targets.
    We will also include in the information collection detailed 
guidance on how applicants can respond to the ``Impact and Evaluation'' 
criterion in a more comprehensive and compelling manner.
    In order to mitigate against a significant increase in respondent 
burden, applicants will be required to complete only items (a), (b), 
and (c) on the PMF when they submit their FY 2014 grant applications. 
If the application is recommended for funding, we will require the 
submission of fully completed forms.
    We anticipate that the Impact and Evaluation narrative and the PMFs 
may result in some additional time requirements in the application 
preparation, but will reduce the total burden hours for performance 
reporting because the form is designed to facilitate data collection 
and reporting. We expect the new evaluation plan for this information 
collection will increase the applicant burden by an estimated 50 hours 
per response for a total burden of 450 hours per response. We believe 
that this additional time will improve the quality of the submitted 
applications and subsequently improve the application review, grant 
making, and performance reporting processes. When the awards are made, 
grantees will already be fully aware of the reporting requirements.
    If you want to comment on the proposed information collection 
requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 
Department of Education. Send these comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also send a 
copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble or submit electronically through the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID 
ED-2014-OPE-0038.
    Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting 
comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for 
submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use 
the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You 
may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in 
the regulations.gov site.
    We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your 
comments you may want to review the ICR, which

[[Page 15081]]

is available at www.reginfo.gov. Click on Information Collection 
Review. This proposed collection is identified as proposed collection 
1840-0807 ED-2014-OPE-0038.
    We consider your comments on this proposed collection of 
information in--
     Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for 
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
Information we collect; and
     Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, 
it is important that OMB receives your comments by April 17, 2014. This 
does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed 
regulations.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Senior Director, Policy Coordination, Development, and Accreditation 
Service, delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of 
the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-05927 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P