Final Priorities; Centers for International Business Education Program, 31870-31873 [2014-12847]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31870-31873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: timothy.duvall@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 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