[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31870-31873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12847]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0034]
Final Priorities; Centers for International Business Education
Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31871]]
[CFDA Number: 84.220A.]
SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces two priorities for the Centers for International Business
Education (CIBE) program. The Assistant Secretary may use these
priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years.
The first priority promotes projects that propose to collaborate
with one or more professional associations or businesses to expand
employment opportunities for international business students, for
example, by creating internships and work-study opportunities. We
intend for the first priority to improve the preparation of
international business students to enter the workforce. The second
priority promotes projects that propose collaborative activities with a
Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) or a community college. We intend
for this priority to address a gap in the types of institutions,
faculty, and students that have historically benefitted from the
instruction, training, and outreach available at centers for
international business education.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective July 3, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Duvall, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6069, Washington, DC 20006.
Telephone: (202) 502-7622 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:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CIBE program is to provide
funding to institutions of higher education or consortia of such
institutions for curriculum development, research, and training on
issues of importance to U.S. trade and competitiveness.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1130-1.
Applicable Program Regulations: As there are no program-specific
regulations, we encourage each potential applicant to read the
authorizing statute for the CIBE program in section 612 of Title VI,
Part B, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20
U.S.C. 1130-1.
We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15084). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities. There is a difference between the proposed
priorities and these final priorities as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, five
parties submitted comments. Three of the comments addressed the
proposed priorities and two of the comments addressed the wording in
the Purpose of Program section of the NPP.
We discuss substantive issues under the priority to which they
pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows.
General
Comment: Two commenters noted that the wording in the Purpose of
Program section of the NPP does not accurately reflect the entities
eligible for funding under the CIBE program. They stated that schools
of business are not the only eligible entities and suggested broader
wording.
Discussion: We agree that the wording in the Purpose of Program
section of the NPP is too narrow and does not accurately reflect the
purpose of the program under the statute. Under the statute (20 U.S.C.
1130-1(a)(2)), the program is designed to support institutions of
higher education or consortia of such institutions.
Changes: We revised the Purpose of Program section in this notice
of final priorities to specify that the CIBE program provides funding
to institutions of higher education or consortia of such institutions,
rather than just to schools of business.
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 a notice of final priorities.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--Collaboration With a Professional Association or Business
Comment: A commenter suggested that business education should
include a study of labor laws to address inequalities in the workplace
and the protection of workers values.
Discussion: The CIBE program focuses on supporting institutions of
higher education that operate centers for international business
education. Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant from
incorporating the study of labor laws and microinequities in the
workplace into its curriculum. However, we do not wish to limit
grantees in their project design by further specifying areas of study.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Collaboration With MSIs or Community Colleges
Comment: A commenter stated that the wording of the proposed
priority implied that an applicant can meet the priority by proposing
collaborative activities with only one MSI or community college and
requested that we change the priority to allow collaboration with
multiple MSIs or community colleges.
Discussion: We agree that the proposed priority unnecessarily
limited the scope of the priority and we are revising the final
priority to include the option of collaborating with one or more MSIs
or community colleges. We believe that a proposed project could benefit
from collaboration with more than one MSI or community college, or a
combination of MSIs and community colleges.
In addition, in connection with a comment received on a similar
priority under a different program, we considered whether, for an
applicant that meets the definition of an MSI, we should allow that
institution to meet the priority by conducting intra-campus
collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative
activities with other MSIs or community colleges. After further review,
we believe it is appropriate to permit an institution that is also an
MSI the flexibility to focus on intra-campus collaborative activities
as well as on collaborative activities with other MSIs and community
colleges.
Changes: We have revised the priority to clarify that an
institution can collaborate with multiple MSIs or community colleges,
or a combination of MSIs and community colleges. We have also clarified
that an institution that is an MSI may meet the priority by proposing
intra-campus collaborative activities as well as on collaborative
activities with other MSIs and community colleges.
Final Priorities
Priority 1: Collaboration With a Professional Association or Business
Applications that propose to collaborate with one or more
[[Page 31872]]
professional associations and/or businesses on activities designed to
expand employment opportunities for international business students,
such as internships and work-study opportunities.
Priority 2: Collaboration With Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) or
Community Colleges
Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative
activities with one or more MSIs (as defined in this notice) and/or
with one or more community colleges (as defined in this notice). These
activities must be designed to incorporate international,
intercultural, or global dimensions into the business curriculum of the
MSI(s) and/or community college(s). If an applicant institution is an
MSI (as defined in this notice), that institution may propose intra-
campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to,
collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.
For the purpose of this priority:
Community college means an institution that meets the definition in
section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act (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. 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 31873]]
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: May 29, 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. 2014-12847 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P