Final Priority; Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program, 31031-31035 [2014-12582]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31031-31035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0035]


Final Priority; Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 
Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priority.

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

    [CFDA Number: 84.015B.]

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 
announces a priority under the Foreign Language and Area Studies 
Fellowships (FLAS) Program administered by the International and 
Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office. The Assistant Secretary may 
use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later 
years.
    We take this action to lower postsecondary education costs for

[[Page 31032]]

students in the United States who have financial need and who seek to 
become language and area studies experts. We intend the priority to 
give FLAS institutions an incentive to award fellowships to students 
who would most benefit from financial relief.

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective June 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Maloney, U.S. Department of 
Education, 1990 K St. NW., Room 6082, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: 
(202) 502-7521 or by email: kate.maloney@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:
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the FLAS Program is to provide 
allocations of academic year and summer fellowships to institutions of 
higher education or consortia of institutions of higher education to 
assist meritorious undergraduate and graduate students undergoing 
training in modern foreign languages and related area or international 
studies.

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

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 657.
    We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the 
Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15081). That notice contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular 
priority.
    There are differences between the proposed priority and this final 
priority as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section 
elsewhere in this notice.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of 
proposed priority, 11 parties submitted comments on the proposed 
priority.
    We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed 
priority follows.

General Support

    Comments: Three commenters expressed support for the priority. Two 
commenters remarked that the priority was appropriate and feasible to 
implement.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.

Legislative Authority

    Comments: Three commenters expressed concern that the priority went 
beyond the statutory authority that establishes that fellowship awards 
be merit based. Specifically, one commenter suggested that section 608 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), limits the 
Department to the criterion of ``excellence'' for FLAS awards. Another 
commenter stated that ``high academic achievement'' as described in 34 
CFR 657.3(c) is the only legally authorized criterion for selection of 
fellows.
    Discussion: The Department believes that it has legal authority to 
establish this priority. Neither the selection criteria in section 
608(a) of the HEA nor the eligibility criteria in Sec.  657.3, 
including the criteria regarding the type of program the applicant is 
enrolled in and whether the applicant shows potential for high academic 
achievement, is changed by this priority. In other words, a student 
must meet the criteria in section 608(a) of the HEA and in Sec.  657.3 
before the student could receive preference from an institution, based 
on financial need, under this priority. We also note that fellowship 
applicants who do not receive the preference described in the priority 
may still be awarded fellowships.
    Changes: None.

Administrative Burden

    Comments: Four commenters remarked on the increased burden of 
administering the priority. One commenter noted that FLAS coordinators 
would have to field more financial aid inquiries from students. Two 
commenters claimed that it may be difficult or impossible to share 
financial aid information across institutions for FLAS fellows who 
apply from other institutions.
    One commenter suggested that an institution's FLAS award selection 
processes would have to be significantly changed to meet the priority. 
Another commenter remarked that the institution's admissions policies 
would have to be revised because its graduate programs do not require a 
demonstration of financial need to be eligible for scholarships or 
funding.
    Three commenters suggested that the inclusion of financial need 
criteria in the selection of students for FLAS fellowships would create 
student privacy concerns that would burden administrative staff. The 
commenters remarked that the inclusion of student financial data would 
require changes in the award process and additional staff training to 
securely process the sensitive information.
    Two commenters noted the increased burden for students to have to 
fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in order 
to be competitive for a FLAS award. One commenter cited that a minority 
of graduate students fills out a FAFSA form, and, accordingly, graduate 
students would have to complete a FAFSA solely to qualify for a 
preference under the priority.
    Discussion: We agree that administering this priority will require 
the academic department that awards fellowships to field more financial 
aid inquiries from students and coordinate with the institution's 
financial aid office. We believe this additional work will not present 
an unreasonable burden on the institution. Additional student inquiries 
and increased coordination with other offices on campus do not outweigh 
the importance of directing fellowship aid where it is most needed. We 
also do not believe it is difficult or impossible for an institution to 
obtain financial aid information related to a summer applicant who 
attends another institution. A student may request that the Department 
send an Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) to an 
additional school through FAFSA on the Web, and the new institution 
will receive the information the next business day.
    We also do not believe that the burden to protect the privacy of 
student information will be significant given that an institution 
should already have in place requirements for the protection of student 
information. In addition, the financial aid office could limit the 
information that it transmits to the academic department to cover only 
the student's expected family contribution (EFC), rather than providing 
all of the student's ISIR information to the academic department. In 
addition, an institution may meet the priority by committing to use a 
preference for students with financial need beginning in the 2015-2016 
academic year, which will provide institutions with time to address any 
necessary staff training.
    We also do not believe that it is unreasonable to require a 
graduate student who seeks to obtain a competitive preference for a 
fellowship to submit a FAFSA. The potential benefit to the graduate 
student outweighs the inconvenience of completing a FAFSA. Moreover, a 
student may be awarded a FLAS fellowship even if he or she did not 
submit a FAFSA, depending on the number of fellowships available to the 
institution and the characteristics of the other applicants. 
Nonetheless, we

[[Page 31033]]

recognize that this may require the institution to educate its students 
about the requirement to submit a FAFSA in order to potentially receive 
preference under the priority.
    Although this priority may add another layer to the fellowship 
selection process, we do not believe that the selection process will 
require significant changes, as an institution can obtain this 
financial information without an undue burden. Nonetheless, in response 
to commenters' concerns regarding administrative burden we have revised 
the priority language to allow an institution at the time of 
application to propose a preference for students who have financial 
need only for undergraduate students, only for graduate students, or 
for both types of students. This allows an institution flexibility in 
deciding whether it is feasible to consider financial need for only its 
undergraduate students, its graduate students, or all students.
    We also have revised the priority to allow an institution to start 
using the preference in the 2015-2016 academic year. We believe this 
extra time for implementation will allow institutions to create the 
required processes on their campuses to implement the priority.
    Changes: We have made two revisions to the priority. First, we have 
revised the priority to allow an institution to use a preference for 
students who have financial need only for undergraduate students, only 
for graduate students, or for both types of students. We also revised 
the priority to provide that an institution may meet the priority by 
committing to start using the preference in the 2015-2016 academic 
year, rather than in the first year of the grant as we originally 
proposed.

Timing of Competitions and Notifications

    Comments: Three commenters expressed concern regarding the 
feasibility of implementing the FLAS selection process under this 
priority due to the timing of the release of financial aid information. 
They noted that their selection committees typically meet in February 
and notify FLAS fellows who have been selected by March. These 
commenters believed that this timeframe was not achievable under the 
proposed priority because FAFSA data are not available until March or 
April. A commenter provided two reasons why FLAS awards need to be 
determined in March before the availability of FASFA data. First, the 
commenter said that summer FLAS fellows must be notified of the FLAS 
committee's decision by March so that they can apply to summer programs 
and submit their overseas program requests to the Department's IFLE 
staff. Second, the commenter noted that academic year awards for 
incoming students need to be determined by March so that the 
institution can recruit competitive students who must make graduate 
school decisions by April 15.
    Two commenters remarked that the financial aid criteria will 
complicate the selection process but have little impact on the 
selection of FLAS fellows at the graduate level. A commenter noted that 
most graduate students are full-time students with limited sources of 
funding, and so they would likely qualify on the basis of financial 
need anyway. A commenter noted that the principal determinant of a 
graduate student's financial need would be the student's marital status 
and presence or absence of dependents, and the commenter suggested that 
these factors are not appropriate selection criteria for making FLAS 
award decisions.
    Discussion: We do not agree that the requirements of the priority 
will impede institutions in making awards by their usual deadlines. 
Students may submit FAFSAs to the Department beginning January 1, 
including through FAFSA on the Web. The Department processes records 
every weekday, except Federal holidays, and institutions generally 
receive the results of a FAFSA within one to two days after the student 
submits the FAFSA. If the institution wants students to apply for FLAS 
grants by February, it can instruct applicants who want to be 
considered for a preference based on financial need that they must 
submit the FAFSA before the selection committee meets in February.
    Based on the previously described revisions to the priority 
language, institutions have the option to apply the priority to 
undergraduates only. Nonetheless, while it is possible that a 
preference for graduate students demonstrating financial need may 
consequently benefit students with spouses or children, we believe that 
assisting those students with financial need before awarding 
fellowships to students who have not demonstrated need is the most 
responsible use of scarce resources.
    Changes: None.

Student Financial Aid Packages

    Comments: Three commenters suggested that the financial aid 
criterion will negatively affect the students whom the priority intends 
to assist. One commenter said that students with financial need who may 
be eligible to receive scholarships other than FLAS awards would appear 
to have low unmet need on account of scholarships the students may 
later turn down, and so they would be disadvantaged in the FLAS 
selection process. Another commenter noted that some academic 
departments provide more generous fellowship and teacher assistant 
stipends than others. Students from these departments would be 
categorized as less needy and therefore less competitive for FLAS 
awards, and the departments would be penalized for their financial aid 
policies.
    Discussion: Our intent through this priority is to provide FLAS 
fellowships to students with financial need. To avoid penalizing needy 
students who may have received other scholarship offers, we have 
revised the priority language to indicate that a student's need should 
be determined based on the student's EFC, which reflects the student's 
financial circumstances before other aid, such as scholarships, is 
considered.
    Changes: We revised the priority to add language indicating that a 
student's need is to be calculated using the student's EFC, which 
reflects the student's financial circumstances before other aid, such 
as scholarships, is taken into account.

FLAS Student Eligibility

    Comment: One commenter suggested that FLAS awards be made available 
to students from other colleges and universities regardless of whether 
a student is enrolled in an institution with an allocation of FLAS 
fellowships.
    Discussion: Under Sec.  657.3 (b)(1) of the FLAS Program 
regulations, a student is eligible to receive a fellowship if the 
student is enrolled in an institution receiving an allocation of 
fellowships. The Department does not have the authority to revise the 
priority absent a change to the regulations.
    Changes: None.

Final Priority

    Priority: Applications that propose to give preference when 
awarding fellowships to undergraduate students, graduate students, or 
both, to students who demonstrate financial need as indicated by the 
students' expected family contribution, as determined under part F of 
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This need 
determination will be based on the students' financial circumstances 
and not on other aid. The applicant must describe how it will ensure 
that all fellows who receive such preference show potential for high 
academic achievement based on such indices as grade point average, 
class ranking, or similar measures that the institution may determine. 
For grants awarded with fiscal year 2014 funds, the preference

[[Page 31034]]

applies to fellowships awarded for study during academic years 2015-16, 
2016-17, and 2017-18.

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)).
    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 this priority, 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);
    (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 final 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 final 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 this final priority only on a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 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 does 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.
    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.


[[Page 31035]]


    Dated: May 27, 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. 2014-12582 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P