Final Priority; Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program, 33432-33434 [2014-13654]

Download as PDF 33432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–3835, 240–402–1264. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 11, 2014 (79 FR 20095), we amended the color additive regulations in § 73.530 Spirulina extract (21 CFR 73.530) to expand the permitted use of spirulina extract made from the dried biomass of the cyanobacteria A. platensis, as a color additive in confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, and readyto-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals). We gave interested persons until May 12, 2014, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of April 11, 2014, should be confirmed. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73 Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the April 11, 2014, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby became effective May 13, 2014. Dated: June 6, 2014. Philip L. Chao, Acting Director, Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. 2014–13524 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter VI wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES [Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0036; CFDA Number 84.016A.] Final Priority; Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Final Priority. AGENCY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:10 Jun 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 MinorityServing Institutions (MSIs) and community colleges in programs funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and to PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 institutionwide 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, OMBapproved 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. E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM 11JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:10 Jun 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 33433 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 E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM 11JNR1 wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES 33434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:10 Jun 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 12 [NPS–WASO–REGS–14841; PX.XVPAD0517.00.1; 1024–AE01] National Cemeteries, Demonstration, Special Event National Park Service, Interior. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The National Park Service is revising the definition of the terms demonstration and special event, applicable to the national cemeteries administered by the National Park Service. DATES: This rule is effective on July 11, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.J. North, National Park Service Regulations Program, by telephone: 202–513–7742 or email: waso_ regulations@nps.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a proposed rule on this subject in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53383). The proposed rule’s comment period ended on October 28, 2013, and resulted in three timely submitted comments, a portion of which were duplicative of each other. After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to adopt the proposed rule unchanged. The comments and our considerations are summarized in this preamble under Consideration of Comments. SUMMARY: Background The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for protecting and managing fourteen national cemeteries, which are administered as integral parts of larger NPS historical units. A list of the national cemeteries managed by the NPS may be viewed at http:// www.cem.va.gov/cem/cems/doi.asp. The national cemeteries administered by the NPS have been set aside as resting places for members of the fighting forces of the United States. Many activities and events that may be appropriate in other park areas are inappropriate in a national cemetery PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 because of its protected atmosphere of peace, calm, tranquility, and reverence. The NPS continues to maintain its substantial interest in maintaining this protected atmosphere in its national cemeteries, where individuals can quietly visit, contemplate, and reflect upon the significance of the contributions made to the nation by those who have been interred there. In Boardley v. Department of the Interior, 605 F.Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia noted that the NPS definition of the term demonstration in 36 CFR 2.51(a) and 7.96(g)(1)(i) could pose a problem on the scope of the agency’s discretion, insofar as it could be construed to allow NPS officials to restrict speech based on their determination that a person intended to draw a crowd with their conduct. The NPS had not applied, nor intended to apply, its regulations in an impermissible manner. Nevertheless, to address the District Court’s concerns in Boardley, the NPS narrowed the definition of demonstration in 36 CFR 2.50, 2.51, and 7.96 (78 FR 14673, March 7, 2013; 78 FR 37713, June 24, 2013). The NPS desires to maintain consistency in the regulations governing demonstrations and special events in park units, including our national cemeteries. Accordingly, we proposed to amend the terms demonstration and special event in § 12.3 to mirror the language used in 36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96. To avoid the possibility of a decision based on impermissible grounds, the rule revises the § 12.3 definitions of demonstration and special event by eliminating the terms ‘‘intent, effect, or likelihood’’ and replacing them with the term ‘‘reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.’’ These proposed revisions do not substantively alter the § 12.4 prohibition of special events and demonstrations within national cemeteries. Consideration of Comments Comment 1: The first commenter suggests the phrase ‘‘that attracts or’’ be added to the definition before the phrase ‘‘is reasonably likely to attract.’’ The commenter suggests this would help ‘‘avoid quarrelsome demonstrator’s [sic] efforts to subvert the rule’s purpose by arguing what is ‘reasonably likely’.’’ Response: After review, we believe the suggested additional phrase is unnecessary. As explained in the proposed rule preamble, we believe that a ‘‘reasonably likely’’ standard is objective and easily and consistently understood. Further, this same standard has been successfully implemented in E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM 11JNR1

Agencies

[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