6470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

reasonably believe that you committed a 

prohibited act. An incident report 

describing the incident and the 

prohibited act(s) you are charged with 

committing will be issued to you, which 

you will ordinarily receive within 24 

hours of staff becoming aware of your 

involvement in the incident. 

(b) Investigation. After you receive an 

incident report, it will be investigated. 

* * * * * 

(2) Statement. When asked for your 

statement, you may give an explanation 

of the incident, request any witnesses be 

interviewed, or request that other 

evidence be obtained and reviewed. 

However, the investigation of the 

incident report may be suspended 

before requesting your statement if it is 

being investigated for possible criminal 

prosecution. 

(3) Informally resolving the incident 

report. The incident report may be 

informally resolved at any stage of the 

disciplinary process, for Moderate 

Severity Level prohibited acts, or as 

otherwise required by law or these 

regulations. The incident report will not 

be removed from your discipline 

records, unless it is informally resolved 

or expunged. 

■ 7. Amend § 541.7 by revising the 

section introductory text, paragraphs (c) 

and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 541.7 Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) 

review of the incident report. 

A Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) 

will review the incident report once the 

investigation is complete. The UDC’s 

review involves the following: 

* * * * * 

(c) Timing. The UDC will ordinarily 

review the incident report within five 

work days after the day staff became 

aware of the inmate’s involvement in 

the incident, not counting the day staff 

become aware of the inmate’s 

involvement, weekends, or holidays. 

UDC review of the incident report may 

also be suspended if it is being 

investigated for possible criminal 

prosecution. 

* * * * * 

(f) Sanctions. If you committed a 

prohibited act(s), the UDC can impose 

any of the available sanctions listed in 

Tables 1 and 2, except loss of good 

conduct sentence credit, FSA Time 

Credits, disciplinary segregation, 

monetary restitution, or monetary fines. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 541.8 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 541.8 Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) 

hearing. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) The incident report will be 

referred back for further investigation, 

review, disposition, or other action as 

recommended or necessary. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–01088 Filed 1–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[ED–2024–OPE–0002] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

and Definition—Augustus F. Hawkins 

Centers of Excellence Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes priorities, 

requirements, and definition for use in 

the Augustus F. Hawkins Centers of 

Excellence (Hawkins) Program, 

Assistance Listing Number 84.428A. 

The Department may use one or more of 

these priorities, requirements, and 

definition for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2024 and later years. We intend for 

these priorities, requirements, and 

definition to help increase the number 

of, and retain, well-prepared teachers 

from diverse backgrounds, resulting in a 

more diverse teacher workforce 

prepared to teach in our Nation’s 

underserved elementary and secondary 

schools and close student opportunity 

and achievement gaps. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, 

if you require an accommodation or 

cannot otherwise submit your 

comments via www.regulations.gov, 

please contact one of the program 

contact persons listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 

Department will not accept comments 

submitted by fax or by email, or 

comments submitted after the comment 

period closes. To ensure the Department 

does 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 ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

Note: The Department’s policy is 

generally to make 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: Dr. 

Vicki Robinson, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–7907. Email: 

Vicki.Robinson@ed.gov. You may also 

contact Ashley Hillary, U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–7880. Email: 

Ashley.Hillary@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priorities, 

requirements, and definition, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

section of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition that each 

comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 

overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definition. 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 public comments about 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definition by accessing 

Regulations.gov. To inspect comments 

in person, please contact one of the 

persons listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6471 

1 Isenberg, E., Max, J., Gleason, P., Johnson, M., 

Deutsch, J., and Hansen, M. (2016). Do Low-Income 

Students Have Equal Access to Effective Teachers? 

Evidence from 26 Districts (NCEE 2017–4007). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

2www.ed.gov/raisethebar/Eliminating-EducatorShortages-through-Increasing-Educator-Diversity. 

3 Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, 

retention and the minority teacher shortage. CPRE 

Research Report #RR–69. Philadelphia, PA: 

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 

University of Pennsylvania. 4Carver-Thomas, D., and Darling-Hammond, L. 

(2017). Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters and What 

We Can Do About It, Learning Policy Institute, 

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacherturnover-report. 

5 Grissom, J. (2018). Strong principals retain 

effective teachers—and don’t retain ineffective 

ones, The Brookings Institution, https://

www.brookings.edu/articles/strong-principalsretain-effective-teachers-and-dont-retainineffective-ones/. 

6Francies, C., Glover, S., and Jamieson, C. (2021). 

Enhancing Teacher Preparation Through Clinical 

Experience. Education Commission of the States. 

https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

Enhancing-Teacher-Preparation-Through-ClinicalExperience.pdf. 

7National Research Council. (2010). Preparing 

teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. 

Report by the Committee on the study of teacher 

preparation programs in the United States. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition. 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 Hawkins 

Program, authorized under part B of title 

II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (HEA), is designed to 

support comprehensive, high-quality 

State-accredited teacher preparation 

programs by creating centers of 

excellence at Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (HBCUs); Tribal 

Colleges or Universities (TCUs); or 

Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), 

such as Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

(HSIs). The Hawkins Program will help 

increase the number of, and retain, wellprepared teachers from diverse 

backgrounds, resulting in a more diverse 

teacher workforce prepared to teach in 

our Nation’s highest-need elementary 

and secondary schools and close 

student opportunity and achievement 

gaps. This program focuses on the 

various aspects of the teacher 

preparation pipeline, including the 

recruitment, preparation, support, 

placement, and retention and retraining 

of teachers for and in high-need schools 

to support underserved students. 

Through this program, the Secretary 

seeks to fund applicants that propose to 

incorporate evidence-based practices 

into their teacher preparation program. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1033– 

1033a. 

Proposed Priorities 

Background: There is significant 

inequity in students’ access to wellprepared, experienced, and effective 

teachers,1 particularly for students from 

low-income backgrounds, students of 

color, children or students with 

disabilities, and English learners (ELs).2

Providing all students with consistent 

access to a well-prepared, effective, and 

diverse educator workforce who provide 

high-quality instruction and support to 

all children and youth is essential to 

closing opportunity and achievement 

gaps. Teachers who entered the 

profession through the least 

comprehensive teacher preparation 

pathway are two to three times more 

likely to leave their school or the 

profession compared to those who 

entered through a comprehensive 

pathway.3 Research demonstrates that 

high rates of turnover harm student 

achievement,4 and that the quality of a 

school’s leadership is among the most 

important predictors of teacher 

turnover, with more effective principals 

being more likely to retain their best 

teachers.5

The Hawkins Program is critical in 

enabling the Department to meet its goal 

of supporting a diverse teacher 

workforce to improve student 

opportunities, achievement and 

outcomes, and address the educator 

shortage, by providing expanded access 

to comprehensive, high-quality, and 

affordable educator preparation 

programs. To increase and retain the 

number of well-prepared teachers from 

diverse backgrounds, and improve their 

preparation, recruitment, retention and 

placement, the Department proposes the 

following three priorities. We may use 

one or more of these priorities in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Proposed Priority 1: Increase 

Evidence-Based, Comprehensive Preservice Clinical Experiences Through 

Teacher Preparation Programs. 

Background: The Department 

proposes this priority to assist centers of 

excellence at eligible institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) in expanding 

their pre-service clinical experiences 

through comprehensive teacher 

preparation programs. The priority 

would advance comprehensive, highquality teacher preparation by creating 

partnerships with local high-need 

districts and schools, in order to form 

meaningful clinical practice 

partnerships and help address teacher 

shortages. These clinical practice 

partnerships can both provide a 

preparation opportunity and serve as a 

pathway to hiring well-prepared teacher 

candidates from backgrounds that are 

underrepresented in the profession, 

including teacher candidates of color. 

High-quality, evidence-based clinical 

experience can also lead to increased 

teacher retention as research 

demonstrates that teachers prepared in 

classrooms similar to those they teach in 

after graduation are more likely to 

remain in the classroom.6 Furthermore, 

extensive, high-quality, evidence-based, 

clinical experience is one of three 

‘‘aspects of preparation that have the 

highest potential for effects on outcomes 

for students.’’ 7

There are several ways educator 

preparation programs can partner with 

school districts and schools to provide 

these kinds of clinical experiences. For 

example, a number of school districts 

are partnering with teacher preparation 

programs to provide clinical 

experiences that are mutually beneficial 

for teacher candidates and teachers of 

record, and their students. Teacher 

candidates, in addition to completing 

the required elements of evidence-based 

clinical experience, may also serve in 

schools in roles that support students 

and teachers as their academic 

schedules allow and as they complete 

their other requirements for teacher 

certification. Teacher residencies and 

Grow Your Own programs, which may 

be supported through registered teacher 

apprenticeship programs, can support 

teacher candidates serving in these roles 

and cover the costs associated with 

extensive clinical experience. Other 

examples of educator preparation 

programs supporting high need schools 

in this way can be found here: 

www.ed.gov/coronavirus/factsheets/ 

teacher-shortage. 

Proposed Priority 1: 

To meet this priority, an eligible 

applicant must propose projects that are 

evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1) comprehensive teacher 

preparation programs that provide 

extensive clinical experience. 

Applicants with existing programs must 

describe their record in graduating 

highly skilled, well-prepared, and 

diverse teachers and describe how the 

proposed project will refine or enhance 

existing programs. Applicants proposing 

new programs must describe how their 

new program is evidence-based and 

designed to achieve the intended 

outcomes of the Hawkins Program. 

Applicants must also address how they 

will— 

(a) Examine the sources of inequity 

and inadequacy in resources and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge/ 

racial-ethnic-enrollment. 

9Education Trust (2022). Educators of Color Make 

the Case for Teacher Diversity. https://edtrust.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Educators-of-ColorMake-the-Case-for-Teacher-Diversity-November2022.pdf. 

10 Dee, T. (2004). Teachers, race and student 

achievement in a randomized experiment. The 

Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210; 

and Gershenson, S., Hart, C.M.D., Lindsay, C.A., & 

Papageorge, N.W. (2017). The long-run impacts of 

same race teachers. Bonn, Germany: IZA Institute 

of Labor Economics. Discussion Paper Series. 

11Egalite, A., Kisida, B., & Winters, M.A. 

Representation in the classroom: The effect of ownrace teachers on student achievement, Economics of 

Education Review, 45 (April 2015), 44–52. 

12 Grissom, J., Kabourek, S., & Kramer, J. Exposure 

to same-race or same-ethnicity teachers and 

advanced math course-taking in high school: 

Evidence from a diverse urban district, Teachers 

College Record, 122 (2020), 1–42. 

13www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racialdiversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. 

14Blazar, D. (2021). Teachers of Color, Culturally 

Responsive Teaching, and Student Outcomes: 

Experimental Evidence from the Random 

Assignment of Teachers to Classes. 

(EdWorkingPaper: 21–501). Retrieved from 

Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://

doi.org/10.26300/jym0-wz02. 

15www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racialdiversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. 

opportunity and implement pedagogical 

practices in teacher preparation 

programs that are inclusive with regard 

to race, ethnicity, culture, language, 

gender, and disability status and that 

prepare teachers to create inclusive, 

supportive, equitable, unbiased, and 

identity-safe learning environments for 

their students; 

(b) Prepare teacher candidates to 

integrate rigorous academic content, 

including through the effective use of 

technology, and instructional 

techniques and strategies consistent 

with universal design for learning 

principles; 

(c) Prepare teacher candidates to 

design and deliver instruction in ways 

that are engaging and provide their 

students with opportunities to think 

critically and solve complex problems, 

apply learning in authentic and realworld settings, communicate and 

collaborate effectively, and develop 

growth mindsets. Teacher candidate 

pedagogy should include how to 

incorporate project-based, work-based, 

or other experiential learning 

opportunities in curriculum 

development; 

(d) Prepare teacher candidates to 

build meaningful and trusting 

relationships with students and their 

families to support in-home, 

community-based, and in-school 

learning; and 

(e) Provide sustained and high-quality 

pre-service clinical experiences, 

including teaching assistant initiatives, 

that facilitate the pathway to the 

teaching credential for those with 

paraprofessional experience or highquality school leader induction and 

support in the first three years of school 

leadership for principals and other 

school leaders. In providing such 

experiences, applicants must consider 

opportunities to provide pre-service 

clinical experience earlier in the teacher 

preparation program, as is practicable, 

and in ways that benefit students and 

teachers. These clinical experiences 

must be designed to— 

(1) Integrate pedagogy and classroom 

practice and promote effective teaching 

skills in academic content areas; 

(2) Be tightly aligned with course 

work with clear, relevant, and strong 

links between theory and practice; 

(3) Group teacher candidates in 

cohorts to facilitate reflection of practice 

and professional collaboration; 

(4) Closely supervise interaction 

between teacher candidates and faculty, 

experienced teachers, principals, and 

other administrators in high-need 

schools or hard-to-staff schools; and 

(5) Provide high-quality-teacher 

mentoring. 

Proposed Priority 2: Projects that are 

Designed to Increase and Retain the 

Number of Well-Prepared Teachers from 

Diverse Backgrounds. 

Background: The Department 

proposes this priority to increase 

teacher diversity by supporting teacher 

candidates from backgrounds that are 

underrepresented in the profession. 

While the majority of U.S public school 

students are children of color,8 only 20 

percent of teachers are people of color 

and 40 percent of the Nation’s public 

schools do not have a single teacher of 

color on record.9 Research shows that 

teachers of color benefit all students and 

can have a significant positive impact 

on students of color.10 When students of 

color are instructed by teachers of color, 

higher levels of student achievement,11

student encouragement, students 

forming aspirations (e.g., through role 

modeling), teacher recommendations 

(for example, to gifted and talented 

programs), and rigorous course-taking 12

have all been observed. Research also 

demonstrates that teachers of color can 

be positive role models for all students 

in breaking down negative stereotypes 

and preparing students to live and work 

in a multiracial society.13 A more 

diverse teacher workforce also increases 

the likelihood that students of color will 

have access to culturally and 

linguistically relevant teaching and 

learning and positive relationships.14

Thus, supporting teachers of color can 

be a critical strategy for advancing 

educational equity for students of color 

and addressing one of the root causes of 

institutional barriers to equity in the 

academic environment.15

Proposed Priority 2: 

To meet this priority, applicants must 

propose projects that are designed to 

increase the number of well-prepared 

teachers and the diversity of the teacher 

workforce with a focus on increasing 

and retaining a diverse teacher 

workforce, and improving the 

preparation, recruitment, retention, and 

placement of such teachers. 

Applicants addressing this priority 

must describe— 

(a) How their project will integrate 

multiple services or initiatives across 

academic and student affairs, such as 

academic advising, counseling, 

stipends, child-care, structured/guided 

pathways from teacher candidates’ first 

year in the preparation program through 

successful employment placement, 

career services, or student financial aid, 

such as scholarships, with the goal of 

increasing program completion and 

credential attainment; 

(b) Their plan for identifying and 

supporting teacher candidates from 

backgrounds that are underrepresented 

in the profession, including teacher 

candidates of color. This plan must span 

the beginning of the preparation 

program through graduation, and 

include a plan to improve program entry 

rates, as applicable, graduation rates, 

passage rates for certification and 

licensure exams, and rates of successful 

employment placement between teacher 

candidate subgroups and an 

institution’s overall teacher candidate 

population; and 

(c) Their proposed initiatives to 

promote the retention of teachers from 

backgrounds that are underrepresented 

in the profession, including teachers of 

color, prepared through the program, 

which may include induction programs, 

such as teacher or school leader 

induction programs, or mentorship 

programs that provide school and 

district leaders with the support they 

need to persist in their professions. 

Proposed Priority 3—Increasing the 

Number of Bilingual and/or 

Multilingual Teachers with Full 

Certification. 

Background: The Department 

proposes this priority to increase 

teacher diversity by expanding the 

number of bilingual and multilingual 

teachers with full teacher certification. 

In addition to the need for more 

teachers of color, a parallel challenge in 

the Nation’s public schools lies in the 

shortage of multilingual teachers 

prepared to teach a growing population 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6473 

16https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/ 

tables/dt20_204.20.asp. 

17https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/ 

81-children-who-speak-a-language-other-thanenglish-at-home?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/ 

false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/any/ 

396,397. 

18Torre Gibney, D., Kelly, H., Rutherford-Quach, 

S., Ballen Riccards, J. & Parker, C. (2021). 

Addressing the bilingual teacher shortage. 

CCNetwork. 

19https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/el-outcomes/ 

index.html#:∼:text=Graduation%20Rates,- 

In%202015%E2%80%9316&text=

For%20ELs%20the%20

rate%20was,%2DELs%20(85%20percent). 

20www.gao.gov/products/gao-21%E2%80%9343. 

21Steele, J., Slater, R., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, 

J., Burkhauser, S., Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of DualLanguage Immersion Programs on Student 

Achievement: Evidence From Lottery Data, 

American Educational Research Journal, 54, no. 1S,: 

282S–306S, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ 

10.3102/0002831216634463. 

22Williams, C., Soto-Boykin, X., Zabala, J., Meek, 

S. (2023). Why We Need To Cultivate America’s 

Multilingual, Multicultural Assets. The Century 

Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/why-weneed-to-cultivate-americas-multilingualmulticultural-assets/#easy-footnote-bottom-9. 

23Hopkins, M., & Schutz, K.M. (2019). Bilingual 

teacher leadership: Supporting linguistically 

responsive practices and parent engagement in 

schools. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 

9(2), 96–109. 

24Newcomer, S.N., & Puzio, K. (2016). 

‘‘Cultivando confianza’’: A bilingual community of 

practice negotiates restrictive language policies. 

International Journal of Bilingual Education and 

Bilingualism, 19(4), 347–369. 

of English Learners (ELs). ELs are the 

fastest growing student demographic, 

with more than ten percent of students 

identified as ELs currently.16

Additionally, about one-quarter of all 

students speak a language other than 

English at home, whereas only 1 in 8 

teachers do.17 Despite that, more than 

half of the States nationwide are 

experiencing bilingual and multilingual 

teacher shortages and a quarter of the 

States do not require certification or 

endorsements for teachers who teach 

ELs.18

The bilingual and multilingual 

teacher shortage has the potential to 

have a negative impact on all students, 

but especially ELs. These shortages may 

be among the reasons why ELs have 

some of the lowest achievement levels 

and graduation rates.19 During the 

pandemic, ELs were also likely to lose 

instructional time, thus experiencing 

setbacks in their language acquisition 

goals.20 Research demonstrates that ELs 

who are taught in bilingual settings, 

such as dual-language immersion 

programs, by well-prepared bilingual 

teachers have stronger academic 

outcomes and better English-language 

acquisition trajectories than ELs who are 

taught in English only, which 

underscores the need to close the 

multilingual teacher shortage gap.21

Additionally, ELs who learn in bilingual 

settings in which they can maintain 

their native languages while learning 

English have stronger social and 

emotional development, cross-cultural 

skills, and problem-solving skills.22

Bilingual and multilingual learning 

environments can also mitigate 

linguistic barriers that limit family 

engagement, as bilingual and 

multilingual teachers are more likely to 

communicate with linguistically diverse 

families and ensure they have equitable 

access to learn about their students’ 

education.23 Bilingual and multilingual 

teachers’ assets are critical to creating 

inclusive school and family 

partnerships where linguistically 

diverse families can meaningfully 

participate in their child’s education.24

Proposed Priority 3: 

To meet this priority, applicants must 

propose projects that are designed to 

prepare effective and experienced 

bilingual and/or multilingual teachers 

for high-need schools by increasing the 

number of teachers across elementary 

and secondary schools who are fully 

certified to provide academic language 

instruction in a language other than 

English, including for English Learners 

(ELs). These projects must prepare 

teacher candidates to lead students 

toward linguistic fluency and academic 

achievement in more than one language. 

Applicants must describe how— 

(a) Their project will integrate 

multiple services or initiatives across 

academic and student affairs, such as 

academic advising, counseling, 

stipends, child-care, structured/guided 

pathways from teacher candidates’ first 

year in the preparation program through 

successful employment placement, 

career services, and student financial 

aid, such as scholarships, and provide 

the necessary knowledge and skills so 

that teacher candidates can serve 

students from many different language 

backgrounds; and 

(b) Their plan for recruiting, 

supporting, and retaining bilingual and/ 

or multilingual teacher candidates, 

including those who may have a 

teaching credential but have not been 

teaching in bilingual and/or 

multilingual education settings; aspiring 

teachers; and teaching assistants who 

are interested in becoming bilingual 

and/or multilingual teachers. 

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)). 

Proposed Requirements 

The Department proposes the 

following requirements for this program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Proposed Requirement 1—Draft 

Written Agreement with Clinical 

Practice Partner(s). 

An applicant must provide a Draft 

Written Agreement (DWA) that 

identifies the partnership between: (1) at 

least one eligible IHE with a state 

accredited teacher preparation program, 

and (2) a high-need local educational 

agency (LEA) or consortium of highneed LEAs, or with a high-need school 

or consortium of high-need schools. The 

agreement with partners is intended to 

ensure that the parties joining the 

project are committed to fulfilling the 

purpose of the clinical practice by either 

creating new partnerships or expanding 

existing partnerships, and that teacher 

candidates will not become the teacher 

of record prior to completing the 

certification program, including preservice clinical experience, and, for any 

candidates who entered the program 

without a bachelor’s degree, obtaining a 

bachelor’s. Grantees will finalize the 

DWA into a Final Written Agreement 

(FWA) within 120 days of grant award 

notification. 

Proposed Requirement 2— 

Supplement-Not-Supplant. 

Grant funds must be used so that they 

supplement and, to the extent practical, 

increase the funds that would otherwise 

be available for the activities to be 

carried out under this grant. 

Proposed Requirement 3—Indirect 

Cost Rate Information. 

A grantee’s indirect cost 

reimbursement is limited to 8 percent of 

a modified total direct cost base. For 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

more information regarding indirect 

costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect 

cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/ 

offices/list/ocfo/intro.html. 

Proposed Definition 

The Department proposes the 

following definition for this program. 

We may apply this definition in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Pre-service means the period of 

training for a person who does not have 

a prior teaching certification or license 

and who is enrolled in a State-approved 

teacher education program at an 

institution of higher education, prior to 

becoming the teacher of record. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, and 

Definition 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, and definition in a 

document in the Federal Register. We 

will determine the final priorities, 

requirements, and definition after 

considering public comments on the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition and other information 

available to the Department. This 

document does not preclude us from 

proposing additional 

priorities,requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, and definition, 

we invite applications through a notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) determines whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 

(adjusted every three years by the 

Administrator of Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for 

changes in gross domestic product); or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, territorial, or Tribal 

governments or communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

this Executive order, as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. 

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, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. 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, requirements, and definition 

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. 

The potential costs associated with 

these priorities, requirements, and 

definition would be minimal, while the 

potential benefits are significant. The 

Department believes that this proposed 

regulatory action would not impose 

significant costs on eligible entities. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary, and the costs imposed on 

applicants by this regulatory action 

would be limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application. The 

potential benefits of implementing the 

program would outweigh the costs 

incurred by applicants, and the costs of 

carrying out activities associated with 

the application would be paid for with 

program funds. For these reasons, we 

have determined that the costs of 

implementation would not be 

burdensome for eligible applicants, 

including small entities. 

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 these 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. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. The 

Secretary invites comments on how to 

make these proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6475 

• Does the format of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definition 

(grouping and order of sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 

reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition be easier to 

understand if we divided them into 

more (but shorter) sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble be 

more helpful in making the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definition 

easier to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition easier to understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition easier to understand, see the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section. 

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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action would affect are IHEs 

that meet the eligibility requirements 

described in section 241(1) of the HEA. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definition 

would be limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application and 

that the benefits would outweigh any 

costs incurred by applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definition 

would impose no burden on small 

entities unless they applied for funding 

under the program. We expect that in 

determining whether to apply for 

Hawkins Program funds, an eligible 

applicant would evaluate the 

requirements of preparing an 

application and any associated costs, 

and weigh them against the benefits 

likely to be achieved by receiving a 

Hawkins Program grant. Eligible 

applicants most likely would apply only 

if they determine that the likely benefits 

exceed the costs of preparing an 

application. The likely benefits include 

the potential receipt of a grant as well 

as other benefits that may accrue to an 

entity through its development of an 

application, such as the use of that 

application to seek funding from other 

sources to address the teacher shortage 

present in the Nation’s high need-need 

public schools. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. We invite 

comments from eligible small entities as 

to whether they believe this proposed 

regulatory action would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, request evidence to support 

that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition do not 

contain any information collection 

requirements. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. 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 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. 

Nasser Paydar, 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01972 Filed 1–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0096; FRL–11663– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Revisions 

to the State Implementation Plan 

Conformity Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) through a letter dated August 12, 

2022. The revision updates the general 

conformity portion of the conformity 

rule in Florida’s SIP. EPA is proposing 

to approve these changes pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2023–0096 at regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1