Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 76289 

5. Availability of the Draft EIS. The 

Corps intends to issue the draft EIS in 

the 2015/2016 time frame. The Corps 

will announce availability of the draft 

EIS in the Federal Register and other 

media, and will provide the public, 

organizations, and agencies with an 

opportunity to submit comments to be 

addressed in the final EIS. 

Dated: December 4, 2013. 

John Palensky, 

Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29984 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2013–IES–0151] 

Request for Information To Gather 

Technical Expertise Pertaining to Data 

Elements, Metrics, Data Collection, 

Weighting, Scoring, and Presentation 

of a Postsecondary Institution Ratings 

System 

AGENCY: National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: To assist the Department of 

Education (Department) in its efforts to 

develop a Postsecondary Institution 

Ratings System (PIRS), the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

invites the submission of information 

about data elements, metrics, methods 

of data collection, methods of weighting 

or scoring, and presentation frameworks 

for a PIRS for assessing the performance 

of institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) and advancing institutional 

accountability while also enhancing 

consumer access to useful information. 

DATES: Written submissions must be 

received by the Department on or before 

January 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Postsecondary 

Institution Ratings response’’ at the top 

of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://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 this site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to 

Richard Reeves, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Attention: 

Postsecondary Institution Ratings 

System RFI, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20006. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include only information that they wish 

to make publicly available on the 

Internet. 

Submission of Proprietary 

Information: Given the subject matter, 

some comments may include 

proprietary information as it relates to 

confidential commercial information. 

The Freedom of Information Act defines 

‘‘confidential commercial information’’ 

as information the disclosure of which 

could reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial competitive harm. You may 

wish to request that we not disclose 

what you regard as confidential 

commercial information. 

To assist us in making a 

determination on your request, we 

encourage you to identify any specific 

information in your comments that you 

consider confidential commercial 

information. Please list the information 

by page and paragraph numbers. 

This is a request for information (RFI) 

only. This RFI is not a request for 

proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an 

RFP or a notice inviting applications 

(NIA). This RFI does not commit the 

Department to contract for any supply 

or service whatsoever. Further, the 

Department is not seeking proposals and 

will not accept unsolicited proposals. 

The Department will not pay for any 

information or administrative costs that 

you may incur in responding to this RFI. 

If you do not respond to this RFI, you 

may still apply for future contracts and 

grants. The Department posts RFPs on 

the Federal Business Opportunities Web 

site (http://www.fbo.gov). The 

Department announces grant 

competitions in the Federal Register 

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys). It is your 

responsibility to monitor these sites to 

determine whether the Department 

issues an RFP or NIA after considering 

the information received in response to 

this RFI. The documents and 

information submitted in response to 

this RFI become the property of the U.S. 

Government and will not be returned. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Reeves, (202) 502–7436, 

Richard.Reeves@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: 

Background 

A postsecondary education is among 

the most important investments 

students can make in their own futures. 

However, obtaining such an education 

has grown increasingly expensive. The 

average tuition at a public four-year 

college has increased by more than 300 

percent over the past three decades, 

while incomes for typical families grew 

by only 16 percent, according to 

Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) and Bureau of 

Labor Statistics data. Declining State 

funding has moved an increasing share 

of the cost of postsecondary education 

from State taxpayers to students; tuition 

has almost doubled as a share of public 

college revenues over the past 25 years, 

from 25 percent to 47 percent. While a 

college education remains a valuable 

investment overall, the average 

borrower with a bachelor’s degree now 

graduates with more than $29,400 in 

debt, according to 2012 data from the 

National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study. Moreover, college completion 

rates are relatively low: only 58 percent 

of full-time students who began college 

in 2004 earned a four-year degree within 

six years. Loan default rates are rising, 

and many young adults are burdened 

with debt as they seek to start a family, 

buy a home, launch a business, or save 

for retirement. 

The Department provides over $150 

billion each year in student financial 

aid, while States collectively invest over 

$70 billion in public colleges and 

universities. Almost all of these 

resources are allocated based on the 

number of students who enroll, not the 

number of students who earn degrees, 

how much students learn, or the return 

on investment to the students and 

society for the cost of their degrees. 

In August 2013, President Obama 

announced a new agenda that will 

increase college value and affordability 

for American families. As part of this 

plan, the President has directed the 

Department to develop and publish a 

new college ratings system before the 

2015–16 school year. 

The ratings system will help students 

compare the value and affordability of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
76290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 

colleges and encourage colleges to 

improve. The ratings will be based upon 

such measures as: 

• Access, such as percentage of 

students receiving Pell grants; 

• Affordability, such as average cost 

of attendance, scholarships, and student 

loan debt; and 

• Outcomes, such as graduation and 

transfer rates, including those for Pell 

grant recipients, graduate earnings, and 

advanced degree attainment of 

graduates. 

The Department intends, through 

these ratings, to compare colleges with 

similar missions and identify colleges 

that do the most to help students from 

disadvantaged and underrepresented 

backgrounds, as well as colleges that are 

improving their performance. The 

ratings system is not intended to rank 

institutions. Instead, it will provide 

information about an institution’s 

performance on a specific measure or a 

specific set of measures. In the 

upcoming reauthorization of the Higher 

Education Act, the President will 

propose allocating financial aid based 

upon these college ratings by 2018. 

Introduction 

The Department invites IHEs and 

systems of IHEs, their faculty and staff, 

students and parents, college 

counselors, research and data experts, 

State higher education agencies, 

associations, advocacy groups, think 

tanks, publishers, experts in ratings in 

other industries, consortia of any of the 

above entities, or any other interested 

party, to provide information about 

potential data elements, metrics, 

methods of data collection and analysis, 

methods of weighting or scoring, and 

presentation frameworks of a PIRS that 

will be used to advance institutional 

accountability, enhance transparency, 

and improve consumer decisionmaking. Organizations that have 

developed, or are developing, ratings 

systems for postsecondary institutions 

or other non-education entities are also 

strongly encouraged to respond. This 

RFI is specifically inquiring into the 

following: (1) Metrics necessary for 

rating the performance of postsecondary 

institutions using both data elements 

currently available to the Department 

and other Federal agencies, and data 

elements not currently available to the 

Department or other Federal agencies 

but that could be collected in the future; 

(2) empirical methods for weighting, 

scoring, or otherwise combining the 

various metrics into a single dimension 

or a set of dimensions; (3) empirical 

methods for weighting, scoring, or 

otherwise adjusting metrics or grouping 

institutions to ensure appropriate 

comparison and calibration within the 

PIRS; (4) options for presenting the 

information in the PIRS for both 

accountability and consumer 

information purposes; and (5) models of 

ratings systems for entities other than 

postsecondary institutions. The 

Department is interested in a PIRS that 

takes into account information 

important to the Federal government in 

promoting college value and 

affordability, ensuring the integrity of 

Federal student aid programs, and 

carrying out its fiduciary responsibility 

for taxpayer investments in 

postsecondary education. 

Through this RFI, the Department is 

interested in suggestions that address 

the challenges in measuring the 

affordability and value of postsecondary 

education. The Department is interested 

in specific examples of ratings systems 

that best measure postsecondary 

institutions’ value to students and the 

Federal taxpayer. The Department is 

also interested in specific examples of 

empirical methods for taking into 

account the diversity of institutional 

missions and for comparing 

performance across similar institutions. 

In particular, the Department is 

interested in how such factors as 

institutional resources (e.g., State 

investment in postsecondary education) 

and student characteristics (e.g., 

postsecondary readiness) should be 

addressed as part of the ratings system. 

Finally, the Department is interested in 

specific suggestions for minimizing 

unintended consequences such as the 

undervaluing of certain kinds of 

postsecondary credentials or learning 

experiences or creating disincentives for 

institutions to enroll underrepresented 

student populations. 

Information gathered through this RFI 

will inform the development of a PIRS 

designed to advance institutional 

accountability for the investment of 

Federal dollars in IHEs while at the 

same time improving public information 

about college access, affordability, and 

outcomes for students and families. 

In addition to significant outreach 

that the Department is conducting to 

communities and stakeholder groups 

throughout the country, development of 

a PIRS will employ three specific steps. 

First, NCES is issuing this RFI to collect 

information about data elements, 

metrics, methods of data collection, 

methods of weighting or scoring, and 

presentation frameworks. We pose a 

series of questions to which we invite 

interested parties and members of the 

public to respond. Second, NCES will 

host a symposium of external experts to 

discuss and deliberate on these issues in 

greater depth. Third, NCES will publish 

a summary of the recommendations 

developed from the RFI and the 

symposium, as well as other resources 

identified by symposium participants, 

on the Department’s college 

affordability and completion Web site 

(http://www.ed.gov/collegeaffordability). 

Context for Responses 

The primary goal of this RFI is to 

gather information that will help the 

Department develop a PIRS that 

advances the accountability of 

postsecondary institutions and that 

provides enhanced transparency and 

consumer information. We have 

developed several questions to guide 

input. Because the questions are only 

guides, you do not have to respond to 

the specific questions and you may 

provide comments in a format of your 

choice. However, we strongly 

recommend that you provide specific 

examples in your responses. You may 

also provide information that is not 

responsive to a particular question but 

may be helpful. 

Questions 

1. Questions Regarding Data Elements, 

Metrics, and Data Collection 

1.1. Using data currently collected 

by the Department or other Federal 

agencies, and given the 

Administration’s focus on access, 

affordability, and outcomes, what 

metrics are possible for rating the 

performance of postsecondary 

institutions? What metrics are 

appropriate for consumer information 

purposes? What metrics are appropriate 

for accountability purposes? What 

metrics are appropriate for consumer 

information and accountability 

purposes? For each metric, include 

information about data sources, quality, 

availability, and limitations. 

1.2 Using data not currently 

collected by the Department or other 

Federal agencies, and given the 

Administration’s focus on access, 

affordability, and outcomes, what 

metrics are possible for rating the 

performance of postsecondary 

institutions? What metrics are 

appropriate for consumer information 

purposes? What metrics are appropriate 

for accountability purposes? What 

metrics are appropriate for consumer 

information and accountability 

purposes? What is the best way to 

collect data that will inform those 

metrics? What are the challenges in 

collecting such data? 

1.3 What metrics should apply to all 

types of postsecondary institutions? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 76291 

1.4 What metrics should apply to 

institutions with specific missions? 

How should those missions be defined? 

1.5 How should existing limitations 

in Federal postsecondary data and data 

collections be addressed? 

2. Questions Regarding Weighting or 

Scoring 

2.1 What empirical methods for 

weighting, scoring, or otherwise 

reducing a large and complex amount of 

information into a single dimension or 

a set of dimensions should be used in 

a PIRS? 

2.2 What empirical methods for 

weighting or scoring are appropriate for 

consumer information purposes? 

2.3 What empirical methods for 

weighting or scoring are appropriate for 

accountability purposes? 

2.4 What empirical methods for 

weighting or scoring are appropriate for 

both purposes? 

2.5 How should metrics be adjusted 

to account for institutional differences, 

such as mission, and student 

characteristics? How should those 

characteristics be defined? 

2.6 How should metrics be adjusted 

to reflect institutional improvement 

over time? 

3. Questions Regarding the Development 

of Comparison Groups 

3.1 What empirical methods for 

developing institutional comparison 

groups are appropriate for consumer 

information purposes? 

3.2 What empirical methods for 

developing institutional comparison 

groups are appropriate for 

accountability purposes? 

3.3 What empirical methods for 

developing institutional comparison 

groups are appropriate for both 

purposes? 

3.4 Should students be 

disaggregated for comparison purposes 

and if so, by what sub-groups? 

4. Questions Regarding the Presentation 

of Ratings Information 

4.1 What models for presenting 

institutional ratings are appropriate for 

consumer information purposes? 

4.2 What models for presenting 

institutional ratings are appropriate for 

accountability purposes? 

4.3 What models for presenting 

institutional ratings are appropriate for 

motivating consumers to make choices 

that promote institutional 

accountability? 

4.4 How could the PIRS strengthen 

States’ and others’ oversight and 

fiduciary responsibility for 

postsecondary education? 

5. Questions Regarding Existing Ratings 

Systems 

5.1 What are examples of systems 

used to rate the performance of other 

types of entities or services that could 

be used to inform the development of a 

PIRS? 

5.2 What examples of existing 

ratings systems used to rate the 

performance of postsecondary 

institutions could be used to inform the 

development of a PIRS? What lessons 

learned from existing systems could 

inform a PIRS? 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request from Warren Farr at (202) 377– 

4380 or Warren.Farr@ed.gov. 

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. 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3402(4). 

John Q. Easton, 

Director, Institute of Education Sciences. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30011 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Filings Instituting Proceedings 

Docket Numbers: RP14–249–000. 

Applicants: WBI Energy 

Transmission, Inc. 

Description: 2013 Revised Nonconforming Negotiated Rate SA—FT– 

513, 1056, 1109 to be effective 12/1/

2013. 

Filed Date: 12/3/13. 

Accession Number: 20131203–5048. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/13. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–250–000. 

Applicants: Stingray Pipeline 

Company, L.L.C. 

Description: Revise System Map to be 

effective 1/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 12/4/13. 

Accession Number: 20131204–5099. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/13. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–251–000. 

Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage 

Company L.L.C. 

Description: Saltville Gas Storage 

Company L.L.C., Petition for Approval 

of Stipulation and Agreement. 

Filed Date: 12/4/13. 

Accession Number: 20131204–5130. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/13. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and 

§ 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated December 05, 2013. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29928 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Filings Instituting Proceedings 

Docket Numbers: PR14–10–000. 

Applicants: Ohio Valley Hub, LLC. 

Description: Notice of Cancellation of 

Operating Statement. 

Filed Date: 12/2/13. 

Accession Number: 20131202–5165. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES