```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33432-33434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0036; CFDA Number 84.016A.]

Final Priority; Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 
Language Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final Priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 
announces a priority under the Undergraduate International Studies and 
Foreign Language (UISFL) 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 address a gap in 
the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have historically 
benefited from international education opportunities.

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanyelle Richardson, U.S. Department 
of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6099, Washington, DC 20006-8521. 
Telephone: (202) 502-7626 or by email: tanyelle.richardson@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 UISFL Program 
provides grants for planning, developing, and carrying out programs to 
strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in international 
studies and foreign languages.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 658.
    We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the 
Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15087). That notice contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing this particular 
priority.
    There are technical differences between the proposed priority and 
this final priority. We have clarified how applicants that are 
consortia or partnerships may meet the priority.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of 
proposed priority, six parties submitted comments.
    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: Several commenters noted their support of the proposed 
priority, and praised the Department's efforts to promote the 
participation of Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and community 
colleges in programs funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965, as amended (HEA), and to serve students that are historically 
under-represented in international education programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that traditional four-year 
colleges and universities are better prepared to serve as the lead 
applicant in a consortium than are community colleges and MSIs, as they 
are better able, in the current fiscal climate, to devote resources to 
study-abroad activities and the study of critical languages. The 
commenter also suggested that community colleges and MSIs struggle to 
continue and sustain efforts begun with UISFL grant funds.
    Discussion: We disagree that community colleges and MSIs would not 
be able to serve effectively as the lead applicant in a consortium for 
this program. This priority aims to increase the number of MSIs and 
community colleges that become grantees, in order to increase their 
students' access to academic coursework, instructional activities, and 
training that would better prepare them for the 21st-century global 
economy, careers in international service, and lifelong engagement with 
the diverse communities in which they will live.
    Although the Department notes the commenter's concerns, the UISFL 
Program is not meant to be utilized solely for study abroad or critical 
language study efforts. The program is also intended to support 
institution-wide internationalization efforts that are customized 
according to the institution's and its students' needs and goals. This 
could include a program of study that does not include study abroad or 
critical language study.
    Where fiscal and other resources are limited, the Department 
encourages applicants to the UISFL Program to design consortium 
applications in which institutions join together to build upon the 
resources, financial and otherwise, of their partners. In this way, the 
partnership increases the likelihood of projects being sustained and 
fully supported. In addition, the program's matching requirement is 
meant to encourage sustainability and demonstrate commitment by an 
applicant institution's administration.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department has 
underestimated the number of additional burden hours required to 
complete new, OMB-approved forms on project- specific performance 
measures. The commenter also suggested that new applicants to the 
program would be at a disadvantage until they are familiar with the 
forms.

[[Page 33433]]

    Discussion: Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
agency practice, the Department calculated burden hours only for 
applicants, not grantees. With regard to the additional burden hours 
related to evaluation and performance measures, applicants will not be 
required to fully complete the performance measure forms, but to 
provide a project goal statement with accompanying performance measures 
and project activities.
    Note that UISFL applicants that are selected as grantees will be 
required to collect and report on additional performance measure data, 
and the burden hours for these collections will be addressed through 
separate processes. We believe that the estimated burden hours to 
accomplish this task are accurate. Further, we believe that the minor 
burden is outweighed by the benefit because effective program 
evaluation will allow IFLE to monitor accountability for the 
expenditure of public funds, enhance congressional decision-making by 
providing Congress with objective information on the effectiveness of 
Federal programs, and promoting Federal programs' results, delivery of 
services, and customers' satisfaction.
    Changes: None.

Final Priority

    Final Priority: Applications from Minority-Serving Institutions 
(MSIs) (as defined in this notice) or community colleges (as defined in 
this notice), whether as individual applicants or as part of a 
consortium of institutions of higher education (IHEs) (consortium) or a 
partnership between nonprofit educational organizations and IHEs 
(partnership).
    An application from a consortium or partnership that has an MSI or 
community college as the lead applicant will receive more points under 
this priority than applications where the MSI or community college is a 
member of a consortium or partnership but not the lead applicant.
    A consortium or partnership must undertake activities designed to 
incorporate foreign languages into the curriculum of the MSI or 
community college and to improve foreign language and international or 
area studies instruction on the MSI or community college campus.
    For the purpose of this priority:
    Community college means an institution that meets the definition in 
section 312(f) of the 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 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 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 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

[[Page 33434]]

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.

    Dated: June 6, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-13654 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```