```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32651-32653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13208]

[[Page 32651]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0037; CFDA Number 84.229A]

Final Priority; Language Resource Centers Program

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

ACTION: Final Priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 
announces a priority under the Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program 
administered by the International and Foreign Language Education 
Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use this priority for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this 
action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national 
need. We intend the priority to make international education 
opportunities available to more American students.

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 7, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202) 
502-7625 or by email: michelle.guilfoil@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 LRC Program provides grants to institutions 
of higher education or consortia of these institutions for 
establishing, strengthening, and operating centers that serve as 
resources for improving the Nation's capacity for teaching and learning 
foreign languages through teacher training, research, materials 
development, and dissemination projects.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1123.

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 669.
    We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the 
Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15074). That notice contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing this 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, three parties submitted comments on the proposed 
priority.
    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.
    Comment: A commenter endorsed the proposed priorities and expressed 
appreciation for the Department of Education's efforts to facilitate 
stronger participation of MSIs. In addition, the commenter urged us to 
use these priorities as absolute or competitive preference priorities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. However, it is 
our practice to specify the priority types for each competition in the 
notice inviting applications, not in an NFP.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we include a priority for 
applications that include collaboration activities with MSIs to enhance 
access to international activities and foreign language learning.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter and believe that the final 
priority, consistent with the proposed priority, clearly accomplishes 
this goal.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be helpful if we 
provide a list of institutions eligible under Title III, part A; Title 
III, part B; and Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (HEA).
    Discussion: We agree that making this information readily available 
to applicants will help them in addressing and meeting this priority.
    Change: None. We will provide the information on the institutions 
that currently meet this definition in the Federal Register notice 
inviting applications (NIA).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we remove the singular 
modifier before minority-serving institutions (MSIs) 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.
    Change: We have revised this priority to make it clear that an 
institution can collaborate with multiple MSIs or community colleges.
    Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to consider as 
broad a definition of MSI as possible so as to provide the greatest 
opportunities for applicant institutions to positively influence 
students and instructors alike at these underserved institutions.
    Discussion: We believe that the definition of an MSI to be used 
with this priority will serve a wide range of institutions and fulfill 
the Department's intention of addressing the gap in the types of 
institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted 
from the instruction, training, and outreach available at LRCs. 
Institutions that are eligible to receive assistance under Title III, 
part A; Title III part B; and Title V of the HEA include MSIs, 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), predominately 
black institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges, 
among others. This range of institutional types provides sufficient 
options to language resource center institutions in terms of 
collaboration. Considering, too, that community colleges are included 
in this priority, there is flexibility, opportunity, and latitude for 
the Language Resource Center institutions to meet the intended outcomes 
of this priority. We, therefore, do not agree that the definition of an 
MSI for the purposes of this proposed priority is too narrow.
    Change: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Based on internal deliberation, and consistent with a 
change made to a similar priority for the National Resource Centers 
program in response to a comment, we have revised the final priority to 
allow an applicant that itself is an MSI or community college to 
propose 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 Yoruba language instructors to 
develop a language across the curriculum course about human rights 
issues in Africa.
    Changes: We have revised the priority language to permit 
institutions that are MSIs or community colleges to propose intra-
campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to, 
collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.

[[Page 32652]]

Final Priority

Final Priority

    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 foreign languages 
into the curriculum at the MSI(s) or community college(s), and to 
improve foreign language 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 can meet the 
intent of this priority by proposing intra-campus collaborative 
activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with 
other MSIs and/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.

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 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.

[[Page 32653]]

    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: June 3, 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. 2014-13208 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```