[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28588-28590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11682]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Proposed Priorities--American Overseas Research Centers Program;
CFDA Number 84.274A
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes
priorities and definitions for the American Overseas Research Centers
(AORC) Program. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these
priorities and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012
and later years. We intend these priorities and definitions to result
in a wider spectrum of institutions being represented in the AORC
consortia and to provide overseas professional development
opportunities to U.S. postgraduate researchers, visiting scholars, and
faculty from institutions that are traditionally underrepresented in
this program.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Cheryl E. Gibbs,
U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6083, Washington,
DC 20006-8521.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: [email protected]. You must include the term ``AORC Proposed
Priorities'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl E. Gibbs. Telephone: (202) 502-
7634 or by email: [email protected].
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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific proposed priority that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed priorities. Please let us know of ways we could reduce
potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and
activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 6083, 1990 K Street NW., Washington,
DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
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 documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. 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 AORC Program provides grants to consortia
of institutions of higher education (IHEs) to establish or operate an
AORC that promotes postgraduate research, exchanges, and area studies.
Funded AORCs provide programs as well as operational support to U.S.
scholars conducting overseas research that is vital to understanding
the history, culture, economy, languages, and other issues related to
the country or region where the AORC is located. AORCs also facilitate
networking and collaborations via conferences, teaching opportunities
for visiting faculty, and information-sharing through publications and
outreach activities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1128a.
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains two proposed priorities.
Background
The AORC Program is authorized under title VI, part A, section 609
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), which provides
that the Department may only award an AORC grant to a consortium of
IHEs.
In implementing this program, we have observed that consortia
members listed in AORC applications tend primarily to be four year
institutions of which few are minority serving institutions (MSIs). We
hope to increase the number of MSIs that participate in this program
using these priorities. We would also like to encourage more community
colleges to participate in the consortia because community colleges are
developing international education programs and offering foreign
language courses to enhance career training or preparation for transfer
to four-year programs.
In 2011, the American Council of Education (ACE) released the
Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel of Global Engagement; Strength through
Global Leadership and Engagement: U.S. Higher Education in the 21st
Century. The report recommended that when U.S. IHEs are assessing
whether or not they are doing all they can to prepare students for life
after graduation, IHEs examine their activities relative to global
experiences and understandings.
We believe that these priorities and definitions support the
recommendation in the ACE report because they will promote new
institutional partnerships and resource leveraging that will ultimately
improve the opportunities for a broader range of students to access
area studies, language training, and study abroad, and will increase
the number of college graduates who are prepared to work in a globally
competent workforce.
For these reasons, we propose Priority 1--Centers that Expand the
Diversity of IHEs as Consortium Members. Proposed priority 1 is
designed to encourage AORC applications that include a wider spectrum
of U.S. IHEs, such as community colleges and MSIs as consortium
members.
While proposed priority 1 focuses on the members of the consortium
that serve as the AORC, proposed priority 2 focuses on the researchers
and faculty served by the AORC.
Under this program, an AORC provides opportunities for U.S.
postgraduate researchers and faculty participants to (a) conduct
advanced area studies research; (b) network with other U.S. and
overseas scholars; (c) participate in conferences hosted by the AORC;
and (d) engage in symposia, lectures, and outreach. Engaging in these
activities enables participants to enhance their research and expand
the international scope of their courses and teaching at their home
institutions.
Proposed Priority 2--Projects that Provide Research, Teaching, and
Professional Development Opportunities at the Overseas Center to
Individuals from Community Colleges and MSIs is intended to increase
the number of visiting scholars, researchers, and faculty from these
IHEs who participate in the academic, networking, and outreach
activities at funded AORCs. We believe that providing opportunities for
faculty from these IHEs to participate
[[Page 28589]]
in professional development activities in overseas learning communities
provides an important cultural context that bolsters teaching and
research that ultimately strengthens their institutions' international
education programs.
Proposed Priority 1--Centers That Expand the Diversity of IHEs as
Consortium Members
To meet this priority, an applicant AORC must include community
colleges or MSIs, or both as consortium members for the purpose of
establishing or operating the AORC.
Proposed Priority 2--Projects That Extend Research, Teaching, and
Professional Development Opportunities at the Overseas Center to
Individuals From Community Colleges or MSIs, or Both
To meet this priority, the proposed AORC must extend research,
teaching, or professional development opportunities to faculty from
community colleges or MSIs, or both.
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 Definitions
Background
The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education seeks to
achieve greater diversity in the IHEs and participants in the AORC
program by including community colleges and MSIs. These two types of
IHEs are not defined in the AORC program legislation. For this reason,
we propose the following definitions to apply to AORC competitions:
Proposed Definitions
Community College means--
(A) A junior or community college, as that term is defined in
section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f));
(B) Or an institution of higher education (as defined in section
101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards a significant number of
degrees and certificates, that are not--
(i) Bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent); or
(ii) 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 or under
part B of title III or under title V of the HEA.
Final Priorities and Definitions
We will announce the final priorities and definitions in a notice
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities and
definitions after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. 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 proposed 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 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. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on 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 taking this proposed regulatory action 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 these proposed priorities and definitions are
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
[[Page 28590]]
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 both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action 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
Systems 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 9, 2012.
Eduardo M. Ochoa,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012-11682 Filed 5-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P