```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15084-15087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05941]

[[Page 15084]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0034; CFDA Number: 84.220A.]

Proposed priorities--Centers for International Business Education 
(CIBE) Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 
proposes priorities for the CIBE Program administered by the 
International and Foreign Language Education office (IFLE). The Acting 
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal 
year (FY) 2014 and later years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 
20202-2700.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Duvall
    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: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to 
submit comments regarding these priorities. To ensure that your 
comments have maximum effect in developing the 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 any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all comments 
about this notice in Room 6069, 1990 K St. NW., Washington, DC, between 
the hours of 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 purpose of the CIBE Program is to provide 
funding to schools of business for curriculum development, research, 
and training on issues of importance to U.S. trade and competitiveness.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1130-1.
    Proposed Priorities: This notice contains two proposed priorities.
    Background:
    We are proposing two priorities. The first addresses a need to 
prepare international business students to enter the workforce more 
readily and the second addresses 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.
    We first propose a priority for applicants that propose to 
collaborate with one or more professional associations and/or 
businesses on activities designed to expand employment opportunities 
for international business students, such as internships and work-study 
opportunities. In order to meet this proposed priority, an applicant 
must propose to collaborate with one or more professional associations, 
businesses, or firms on activities designed to expand employment 
opportunities for international business students, such as internships 
and work/study opportunities.
    The proposed priority encourages collaborative activities between 
CIBEs and international businesses or professional associations to 
create meaningful internship opportunities for students that will 
enhance their employment prospects. Internship opportunities that 
integrate classroom learning with real work experience are often the 
result of intentional and collaborative efforts between universities 
and industries. Meaningful internship experiences enhance graduates' 
prospects for meaningful employment, and they lead to graduates who are 
better able to apply their learning in the workplace, earn a salary 
that enables them to be self-supporting, and repay their loans rather 
than incurring further debt. Moreover, students with international 
business experience are better prepared to contribute to the work of 
their employers, which will enhance the ability of United States' 
businesses to prosper in an international economy.
    We propose a second priority for applications that propose 
collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) or a 
community college. Currently the Centers for International Business 
Education collaborate with MSIs and community colleges only ad hoc. 
This, however, limits the extent to which the instruction, training, 
and professional development resources are regularly available to and 
accessed by students and faculty at MSIs and community colleges. We 
believe that by requiring CIBE institutions and MSIs and community 
colleges to jointly plan, conduct, and implement activities, the 
international programming, student instruction, career advising, and 
faculty development opportunities on all campuses will be strengthened 
and expanded. These collaborations also enhance institutional capacity 
to recruit students into international business training.
    We believe that by specifying the types of institutional 
collaborations that the CIBEs must engage in, and the types of 
collaborative activities they must conduct, the activities are more 
likely both to have a meaningful and

[[Page 15085]]

measurable effect on students and faculty at MSIs and community 
colleges and be institutionalized and sustained. We also believe that 
successful institutional collaborations of this nature will increase 
the access of traditionally underserved populations to opportunities 
for international business learning and the visibility of international 
business programs and activities on the campuses of MSIs and community 
colleges.
    For this priority, we propose a definition of ``Minority-Serving 
Institution'' that would include institutions eligible to receive 
assistance under Sec. Sec.  316 through 320 of part A of Title III, 
under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
    The Department would use this definition because both Title III and 
Title V programs target college student populations that are 
underrepresented in international education. The Department would like 
to increase the representation of these groups through collaborations 
between Title III/Title V institutions and Title VI institutions.
    Title III reflects our national interest to provide support to 
those institutions of higher education that serve low-income and 
minority students so that equality of access and quality of 
postsecondary education opportunities may be enhanced for all students. 
Under the Title III, institutions may receive designation of 
eligibility depending on their submitted institutional evidence 
documenting their student demographic data.
    Title V targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions because of the high 
percentage of Hispanic Americans who are at risk of not enrolling in or 
graduating from institutions of higher education. The law was designed 
to reduce disparities between the enrollment of non-Hispanic white 
students and Hispanic students in postsecondary education, which 
continue to rise.
    We propose a definition of ``community college'' for use with this 
priority that is broader than the definition in the HEA. The definition 
of ``junior or community college'' in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 
U.S.C. 1058(f)) excludes institutions that award bachelor's and 
graduate degrees. For the purpose of this priority, we propose to 
include in the definition of ``community college'' institutions that 
offer bachelor's or graduate degrees if more than 50 percent of the 
degrees and certificates they award are degrees and certificates that 
are not bachelor's or graduate degrees. We propose this definition to 
include institutions that serve significant numbers of students 
enrolled in programs traditionally offered by community colleges, such 
as associate degree and certificate programs.
    The priorities are:
    Proposed Priority 1: Applications that propose to collaborate with 
one or more professional associations and/or businesses on activities 
designed to expand employment opportunities for international business 
students, such as internships and work-study opportunities.
    Proposed Priority 2: Applications that propose significant and 
sustained collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution 
(as defined in this notice) or a community college (as defined in this 
notice). These activities must be designed to incorporate 
international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the business 
curriculum of the MSI or community college. For the purpose of this 
priority:
    Community college means an institution that meets the definition in 
section 312(f) of the 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)).
    Final Priorities:
    We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities 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 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);

[[Page 15086]]

    (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 proposed priorities only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would 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 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, 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priority will require minor changes to an information 
collection already approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under OMB control number 1840-0616. In addition, the Department 
has developed new Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 
measures for this program, which will result in significant changes and 
increased burden hours for this collection. As required by the PRA, the 
Department is submitting 1840-0616 to OMB for a revised information 
collection clearance concurrently with the publication of this notice 
of proposed priority and definition.
    This new information collection for the CIBE Program will include 
an evaluation guide that provides applicants with more substantive 
guidance on how to respond in a more compelling manner to the Impact 
and Evaluation selection criterion. The guide also will include 
instructions for completing the new performance measure forms (PMFs) 
that applicants are required to include in their submitted proposals. 
For each project element that applicants propose to evaluate during the 
project period, they must include a performance measure form indicating 
the project-specific measure for that element.
    The IFLE Office developed the PMF so that applicants can include 
measurable outcomes for their CIBE projects, based on the goals and 
objectives they intend to accomplish. The PMF is designed to help 
applicants to develop a more cohesive evaluation plan focusing the 
applicant's attention on specific benchmarks and indicators that will 
better demonstrate their progress toward achieving their goals and 
objectives. The PMF should assist applicants in proposing high-quality 
implementation plans at the outset for reporting progress and 
performance results. Additionally, the information and data collected 
via the forms will enable the Department to provide Congress and other 
stakeholders with more concrete evidence to demonstrate the impact of 
CIBE projects. And finally, the PMF is designed to provide a universal 
format that applicants can use to present the performance information 
in their applications. The PMF requests the following: (a) Project goal 
statement; (b) Performance measure; (c) Project activity; (d) Data/
Indices; (e) Frequency of collection; (f) Data source; and, (g) 
Baseline and targets.
    In order to mitigate against increasing respondent burden, 
applicants will be required to complete only items (a), (b), and (c) on 
the PMF when they submit their FY14 grant applications. If the 
application is recommended for funding, we will require the submission 
of fully-completed forms.
    The estimated increase in burden hours for CIBE applicants in 
responding to the new information collection is 100 hours for a new 
total of 500 hours.
    If you want to comment on the proposed information collection 
requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 
Department of Education. Send these comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also send a 
copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble or submit electronically through the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID 
ED-2014-OPE-0034.
    Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting 
comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for 
submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use 
the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You 
may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in 
the regulations.gov site.
    We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your 
comments you may want to review the ICR, which is available at 
www.reginfo.gov. Click on Information Collection Review. This proposed 
collection is identified as proposed collection 1840-0616 ED-2014-OPE-
0034.
    We consider your comments on this proposed collection of 
information in--
     Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for 
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
Information we collect; and
     Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, 
it is important that OMB receives your comments by April 17, 2014. This 
does not affect the deadline

[[Page 15087]]

for your comments to us on the proposed regulations.
    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: March 13, 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. 2014-05941 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```