Final Priorities; National Resource Centers Program, 31028-31031 [2014-12583]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31028-31031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0038; CFDA Number 84.015A]


Final Priorities; National Resource Centers Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 
announces two priorities for the National Resource Centers (NRC) 
Program administered by the International and Foreign Language 
Education Office. The 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 these priorities to address a gap 
in the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have 
historically benefited from the resources available at NRCs and to 
address a shortage in the number of teachers entering the teaching 
profession with global competency and world language training, 
certification, or credentials.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective June 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl E. Gibbs, U.S. Department of 
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6083, Washington, DC 20006, K-OPE-
6078. 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, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    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.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities for this program in 
the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15077). That notice 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the 
particular priorities.
    There are differences between the proposed priorities and these 
final priorities 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 priorities, 25 parties submitted comments on the proposed 
priorities.
    We discuss substantive issues under the number of the item to which 
they pertain. 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 priorities since publication of the notice of 
proposed priorities follows.

Priority 1--Applications that propose significant and sustained 
collaborative activities with one or more Minority-Serving Institutions 
(MSIs) or one or more community colleges

    Comment: Several commenters stated that by defining an MSI for the 
purpose of this priority using eligibility under the programs 
authorized by Title III or Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
as amended (HEA), the Department unduly limits the pool of institutions 
with which NRCs could potentially collaborate. They also observed that 
opportunities to reach and impact substantially more underrepresented 
and underserved populations will be missed if NRC institutions only 
collaborate with institutions that are eligible to receive assistance 
under Title III or Title V of the HEA. The commenters suggested 
alternative strategies to give NRC institutions more flexibility in 
achieving the access and diversity goals of the priority. For example, 
one institutional commenter noted that there are no Title III or V 
institutions in its State, but, to fulfill its urban access mission, it 
serves high enrollments of low-income, underrepresented, and minority 
students through a long-standing partnership with the local public 
school system. When students from the local public school system are 
admitted as undergraduate students, they are familiar with, and more 
likely to participate in, area studies and world language courses and 
study abroad opportunities. The same commenter also noted that to 
support underrepresented, low-income, and underserved students, the 
institution has established valuable partnerships with local agencies 
so that a continuum of resources is available to low-income and 
minority students before and after they are admitted to the 
institution. The commenter suggested that encouraging grantees to 
devise innovative strategies and partnerships that respond to local 
circumstances in order to reach more low-income and minority students 
is more consistent with the Department's emphasis on outcome-based 
performance measures than is requiring grantees to respond to a 
proscribed priority.
    A rural institution commented that it does not have an MSI or a 
community college in its geographic locale. It observed that 
partnerships with MSIs and community colleges should not be prioritized 
over a rural institution's capacity to provide area studies courses and 
less commonly taught language

[[Page 31029]]

training to undergraduate students who are underrepresented minorities. 
The commenter also suggested that, instead of requiring collaborative 
activities with MSIs or community colleges, an NRC should be able to 
meet the priority by incorporating international dimensions into the 
NRC institution's undergraduate curriculum. According to the commenter, 
this would serve to attract and retain minority students and permit the 
NRC to focus its instruction and outreach efforts on underrepresented 
undergraduates on its campus, with the goal of increasing diversity in 
area studies programs.
    Two commenters observed that many NRC institutions independently 
serve high numbers of underrepresented, underserved, or minority 
students, and if they have to allocate limited financial resources to 
support external collaborative activities, this will further strain 
their budgets and divert institutional resources from their students 
who are equally deserving of international education training 
opportunities. Another commenter noted that although it is both an MSI 
and an NRC institution, its internal activities and programming to 
support underrepresented and underserved groups do not meet the intent 
of the priority because the priority focuses on proposing collaborative 
activities with other MSIs. The commenter suggested that, in cases 
where an NRC institution is also a Title III- or Title V-eligible MSI, 
this priority should allow such an institution to focus on intra-campus 
collaborative activities as well as on collaborative activities with 
other MSIs and community colleges.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern that the 
definition of MSI is too narrow for the purpose of the priority and the 
alternative strategies they offered. However, we do not believe that 
the suggested strategies would achieve an important goal of this 
priority, which is to provide Title III and Title V institutions 
opportunities to access the resources available at Title VI 
institutions, through collaboration among Title III, Title V, and Title 
VI institutions. Further, institutions that are eligible to receive 
assistance under Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and Title V 
include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 
predominately black institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and 
tribal colleges, among others. Accordingly, NRC institutions have a 
variety of options for collaboration, covering a wide range of 
underrepresented and underserved populations. Considering that 
community colleges are also included in this priority, we believe that 
there is sufficient opportunity for applicants to meet this priority. 
We, therefore, do not agree that the definition of an MSI for the 
purposes of this priority is too narrow.
    We also believe that there are sufficient opportunities for 
collaboration between an NRC institution that is not in close proximity 
to MSIs or community colleges. For example, the institution may, among 
other things, use technology to connect with other institutions or 
offer faculty travel grants to bring faculty to the institution.
    In regard to the concerns about using limited NRC grant funds to 
conduct the collaboration activities described in the priority, we do 
not think that the activities, if planned cost-effectively, will 
require significant portions of grant funds. In addition, the goal is 
not only to reach underserved students but to support collaboration 
with Title III and Title V institutions to improve international 
education on their campuses.
    For an applicant that meets the definition of an MSI, we agree that 
it is appropriate to allow that institution to meet the priority by 
conducting intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in 
addition to, collaborative activities with other MSIs or community 
colleges. An example of an intra-campus collaborative activity would be 
a project involving the faculty in the Department of Social Sciences 
and the Portuguese language instructors to develop a language across 
the curriculum course about food security issues in Latin America.
    Changes: We have revised the priority language to permit 
institutions that are eligible under Title III or Title V to propose 
intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to, 
collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be helpful if we 
provide a list of eligible Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and 
Title V institutions.
    Discussion: We agree that making this information readily available 
to applicants will help them in addressing and meeting this priority.
    Changes: None. We will provide the information on the institutions 
that currently meet this definition in the notice inviting 
applications.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we remove the singular 
modifier before MSI and before community college to clarify that 
collaborative activities may be proposed with more than one MSI or more 
than one community college.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and are making 
this change to ensure we do not limit the number of entities that are 
able to collaborate under this priority.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to make it clear that an 
institution can collaborate with multiple MSIs or community colleges.

Priority 2--Collaborative activities with schools or colleges of 
education

    Comment: All commenters expressed concern about priority 2 because 
many institutions of higher education do not have a school or college 
of education or do not provide pre-service teacher certification 
training. They further observed that at many institutions, pre-service 
teacher training is offered through the schools of social sciences, 
liberal arts, or natural sciences, or the college of arts and sciences 
or through emerging models in teacher credential programs that are 
decentralized outside of the schools or colleges of education. The same 
commenters recommended that we revise the proposed priority to include 
options such as teacher credentialing programs, programs of teacher 
education, or post-baccalaureate programs. Three commenters recommended 
that we revise the priority to permit institutions that do not have 
schools or colleges of education to collaborate with institutions in 
their geographical location that have schools or colleges of education. 
Similarly, all commenters recommended that we expand the priority to 
allow applicants to propose collaborative activities with colleges or 
schools of education on or off the NRC campus.
    Discussion: We agree with these suggestions. We believe that these 
revisions will offer more flexibility and reflect how different 
institutions of higher education operate in practice, while ensuring 
that the intent and objectives of the priority are still met. In 
addition, we note that the units listed in the final priority are not 
exhaustive, meaning that an institution could also collaborate with 
similar types of units that are not specifically mentioned in the 
priority and institutions that are on or off the NRC campus.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to allow collaboration with 
units such as schools or colleges of education, schools of liberal arts 
and sciences, post-baccalaureate teacher education programs, and 
teacher preparation programs. We also have expanded the priority to 
permit collaborative activities with units or institutions that are on 
or off the NRC campus.

[[Page 31030]]

    Comment: Several commenters raised concerns that the priority does 
not take into consideration that there is a limited job market for new 
teachers with credentials to teach less commonly taught languages 
(LCTLs), partly because LCTLs are not integrated into kindergarten 
through grade 12 (K-12) education or supported by the States.
    Specifically, one commenter noted that giving priority to NRCs that 
contribute to the training and credentialing of new teachers is 
particularly problematic for NRCs that focus on languages and world 
areas such as Southeast Asia (SEA), because world areas like SEA are 
almost entirely absent from State-mandated K-12 curricula. The 
commenter further noted that through the training of Ph.D., Master of 
Arts, and Bachelor of Arts students, an NRC institution that focuses on 
SEA is educating the future post-secondary teachers of Southeast Asian 
Studies, thereby meeting a vital national interest. Similarly, another 
commenter cited the discontinuance of its Russian language teaching 
program due to low enrollment in the face of a weak job market. The 
commenter argued against encouraging students to pursue a teaching 
certification when there is no market for the credential.
    Another commenter recommended that we either eliminate the portion 
of the priority regarding credentialing more foreign language teachers 
or tailor the priority to those specific LCTLs that require additional 
teachers to meet existing and expected future instructional needs 
within the K-12 system.
    Another commenter suggested that we remove the last clause in the 
proposed priority relating to the credentialing of foreign language 
teachers because the commenter believed that LCTL instruction is 
adequately addressed by the first clause regarding the integration of 
world languages into teacher education. The commenter stated that 
teachers who are hired to teach other content courses but who also have 
foreign language training often have the opportunity to expose students 
to LCTLs in conjunction with other teaching activities. The commenter 
further noted that the first part of the priority already addresses 
this indirect path by which the NRCs can support and encourage the 
inclusion of more language instruction in elementary through secondary 
school classrooms. Encouraging teachers in training to study LCTLs has 
the potential to increase the overall availability of instruction in 
LCTLs in regular classroom activities.
    Discussion: We do not agree that the portion of the priority 
relating to the credentialing of foreign language teachers is 
adequately addressed by the first part of the priority regarding the 
integration of world languages into teacher education. The preparation 
and credentialing of foreign language teachers in LCTLs is a distinct 
and formal process that might not necessarily occur under the broader 
collaboration categories in the first clause. We wish to encourage 
preparation and credentialing of foreign language teachers in LCTLs to 
the extent that there is demand for teachers of those languages, and 
therefore will maintain that option in the priority. Nonetheless, this 
activity is not required to meet this priority.
    However, the commenters have provided a sound rationale to revise 
the priority as it relates to the credentialing of foreign language 
teachers in LCTLs. We agree that, due to limited State support and the 
lack of integration of language teaching into elementary and secondary 
education nationwide, there is low or no demand for teachers of some 
LCTLs. Accordingly, we agree with the suggestion that we limit the 
priority to LCTLs for which there is a demand for additional teachers 
to meet existing and expected future K-12 language program needs.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to allow applicants to focus 
their teacher preparation and credentialing efforts on those specific 
LCTLs for which there is a demand for additional teachers to meet 
existing and expected future K-12 language program needs.

Final Priorities

Priority 1

    Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative 
activities with one or more Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as 
defined in this notice) or with one or more community colleges (as 
defined in this notice). These activities must be designed to 
incorporate international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the 
curriculum at the MSI(s) or community college(s), and to improve 
foreign language, area, and international studies or international 
business instruction at the MSI(s) or community college(s). If an 
applicant institution is an MSI or a community college (as defined in 
this notice), that institution may propose intra-campus collaborative 
activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with 
other MSIs or community colleges.
    For the purpose of this priority:
    Community college means an institution that meets the definition in 
section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (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.

Priority 2

    Applications that propose collaborative activities with units such 
as schools or colleges of education, schools of liberal arts and 
sciences, post-baccalaureate teacher education programs, and teacher 
preparation programs on or off the national resource center campus. 
These collaborative activities are designed to support the integration 
of an international, intercultural, or global dimension and world 
languages into teacher education and/or to promote the preparation and 
credentialing of more foreign language teachers in less commonly taught 
languages (LCTLs) for which there is a demand for additional teachers 
to meet existing and expected future kindergarten through grade 12 
language program needs.

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

[[Page 31031]]

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 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 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 these final priorities only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits justify their 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.

    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. 2014-12583 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P