15074 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

times extend 100 yards on either side of 

the race participants and safety vessels. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Key West in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) All persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the regulated area unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Key West or a designated representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port Key West 

by telephone at (305) 292–8727, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to request authorization. 

If authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area is granted by the Captain 

of the Port Key West or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Key West or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective date. This rule is 

effective from 7:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. 

on June 28, 2014. 

Dated: February 24, 2014. 

A. S. Young Sr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Key West. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05864 Filed 3–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket No. ED–2014–OPE–0037; CFDA 

Number: 84.229A.] 

Proposed Priority—Language 

Resource Centers Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

proposes a priority for the Language 

Resource Centers (LRC) Program 

administered by the International and 

Foreign Language Education (IFLE) 

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 

make international education 

opportunities available to more 

American students. 

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 Michelle 

Guilfoil, U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K Street NW., room 6107, 

Washington, DC 20006–8502. 

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: 

Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202) 

502–7625 or by email: 

mailto:michelle.guilfoil@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 this 

proposed priority. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priority, we urge 

you to identify clearly the section of the 

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 this proposed priority. 

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 public comments 

about this notice in room 6099, 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 LRC Program is to provide grants for 

establishing, strengthening, and 

operating centers that serve as resources 

for improving the Nation’s capacity for 

teaching and learning foreign languages 

through teacher training, research, 

materials development, and 

dissemination projects. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR parts 655 and 669. 

Proposed Priority: This notice 

contains one proposed priority. 

Background 

Through the LRC Program, the 

Department makes awards to 

institutions of higher education or 

consortia of institutions of higher 

education to establish, strengthen, and 

operate centers that serve as resources 

for improving the Nation’s capacity for 

teaching and learning foreign languages 

through teacher training, research, 

materials development, and 

dissemination projects. The objective of 

the LRC Program is to increase the 

national capacity in world language 

instruction and learning and to promote 

the research and dissemination of 

effective language instruction materials 

and techniques, among other allowable 

activities. 

We propose a priority for applications 

that propose collaborative activities 

with a Minority-Serving Institution 

(MSI) or community college. We intend 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15075 

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 Language 

Resource Centers. Currently, the 

Language Resource Centers conduct 

collaborative activities with MSIs and 

with community colleges only ad hoc, 

which limits the extent to which the 

training and research resources of those 

centers are available to and accessed by 

students and faculty at MSIs and 

community colleges. We believe that by 

specifying the types of institutional 

collaborations that the Language 

Resource Centers should engage in, and 

the types of collaborative activities they 

should conduct, the activities are more 

likely both to have a meaningful and 

measurable effect on students and 

faculty at MSIs and community colleges 

and be institutionalized and sustained. 

Research data indicate that minority 

students are less likely to have access to, 

or consider academic programs that 

provide the requisite training for careers 

in international service, including study 

abroad and area studies. (Tillman, 

‘‘Diversity in Education Workshop 

Summary Report’’, September, 2010.) 

Among the barriers preventing these 

students from pursuing international 

studies are a lack of exposure to 

international opportunities, and lack of 

access to information, including 

information about international careers. 

(Belyavina and Bhandari, ‘‘Increasing 

Diversity in International Careers: 

Economic Challenges and Solutions’’, 

International Institute of Education, 

November 2011.) 

We believe that by encouraging LRC 

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 studies and 

foreign language training. 

We believe that successful 

institutional collaborations between 

LRC institutions and MSIs and 

community colleges will increase the 

access of traditionally underserved 

populations to opportunities for foreign 

language learning and the visibility of 

international and foreign language 

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 §§ 316 through 320 of part A or 

under part B of Title III or under Title 

V of the HEA. Title III reflects our 

national interest in supporting those 

institutions of higher education that 

serve low-income and minority students 

so that access to, and quality of, 

postsecondary education opportunities 

may be enhanced for all students. Title 

V targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

because of the high percentage of 

Hispanic Americans who are at high 

risk of not enrolling or graduating from 

institutions of higher education. The 

law was designed to reduce the rising 

disparity between the enrollment of 

non-Hispanic white students and 

Hispanic students in postsecondary 

education. 

Accordingly, we propose to use this 

definition of MSI because both Title III 

and Title V programs target college 

student populations that are 

underrepresented in international 

education, and we would like to 

increase the representation of these 

groups through collaboration between 

Title III/Title V institutions and Title VI 

grantee institutions. 

Because the purpose of the priority is 

to make international education 

opportunities available to more 

American students, 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. 

Proposed Priority 

Applications that propose significant 

and sustained collaborative activities 

with a Minority-Serving Institution 

(MSI) (as defined in this notice) or a 

community college (as defined in this 

notice). These activities must be 

designed to incorporate foreign 

languages into the curriculum of the 

MSI or community college and to 

improve foreign language instruction on 

the MSI or community college campus. 

For the purposes 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 §§ 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 Priority and Definitions 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority 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 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 

proposed regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

the requirements of the Executive order 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

15076 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 

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 this proposed priority 

only on 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 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). The 

Department plans to revise the 

information collection for the LRC 

Program by including more detailed 

guidance to assist applicants in 

responding to the Evaluation Plan 

criterion in §§ 655.31 and 669.21 of the 

application; and by requiring one new 

performance measure form (PMF). The 

PMF will require applicants to identify 

project goals and project-specific 

measures for the LRC Program project 

they propose to conduct. Information 

will also be provided on how 

applicants, should they become 

grantees, will meet and report on the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) measures that have been 

developed for the LRC Program. 

The IFLE Office developed this PMF 

so that applicants may propose projects 

with high-quality implementation plans 

at the outset and will require them to 

lay a stronger foundation for reporting 

progress and performance results. 

Additionally, the form will provide the 

Department information that is more 

useful and valid in demonstrating to 

Congress and other stakeholders the 

impact of LRC project. 

This form may result in some 

additional time requirements in the 

application preparation, but will reduce 

the total burden hours for future grantee 

reporting as the form is designed for 

easy data collection and reporting. This 

form also facilitates the process of 

developing a sound evaluation plan 

during the application phase of the 

process. 

The Evaluation Plan criterion in the 

LRC Program regulations evaluates ‘‘the 

quality of the evaluation plan for the 

project’’ and whether ‘‘the methods of 

evaluation are appropriate for the 

project and, to the extent possible, are 

objective and produce data that are 

quantifiable,’’ among other factors. We 

will include in the application detailed 

guidance on how to respond to this 

criterion in a more comprehensive and 

compelling manner. 

In order to standardize the kind of 

performance data to be requested from 

applicants, we have developed a 

project-specific PMF and a GPRA PMF. 

These forms contain the same elements: 

(a) Project goal statement; (b) 

Performance measures; (c) Activities; (d) 

Data/Indicators; (e) Frequency; (f) Data 

Source; and (g) Baseline and Targets, 

but the purposes for the forms differ. 

Applicants will submit a projectspecific form for each project goal that 

the institutions have deemed as 

important to the proposed LRC project. 

For that reason, the total number of 

project-specific PMFs in each 

application will vary. Applicants will 

also be provided with a sample GPRA 

PMF for reference purposes. 

We expect the new evaluation plan 

for this information collection will 

increase the applicant burden by an 

estimated 20 hours per response for a 

total burden of 100 hours. We believe 

that this additional time will improve 

the quality of the submitted 

applications, and subsequently improve 

the application review, grant making, 

and performance reporting processes. 

When awards are made, grantees will 

already be fully aware of reporting 

requirements. 

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.gov or by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15077 

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 number ED–2014–OPE–0037. 

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 1840–0808 ED– 

2014–OPE–0037. 

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 

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. 2014–05937 Filed 3–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket No. ED–2014–OPE–0038; CFDA 

Number: 84.015A.] 

Proposed Priorities—National 

Resource Centers Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed Priorities. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

proposes two priorities for the National 

Resource Centers (NRC) Program 

administered by the International and 

Foreign Language Education (IFLE) 

Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary 

may use these priorities 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 benefitted from the 

instruction, training, and outreach 

available at national resource centers 

and to address a shortage in the number 

of teachers entering the teaching 

profession with international education 

and world language training 

certification and credentials. 

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: 

Cheryl E. Gibbs. Telephone: (202) 502– 

7634 or by email: cheryl.gibbs@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 on these proposed 

priorities. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priorities, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

priority that each comment addresses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS