31028 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 866.3372 Nucleic acid-based in vitro 

diagnostic devices for the detection of 

Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in 

respiratory specimens. 

(a) Identification. Nucleic acid-based 

in vitro diagnostic devices for the 

detection of Mycobacterium 

tuberculosis complex in respiratory 

specimens are qualitative nucleic acidbased in vitro diagnostic devices 

intended to detect Mycobacterium 

tuberculosis complex nucleic acids 

extracted from human respiratory 

specimens. These devices are nonmultiplexed and intended to be used as 

an aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary 

tuberculosis when used in conjunction 

with clinical and other laboratory 

findings. These devices do not include 

devices intended to detect the presence 

of organism mutations associated with 

drug resistance. Respiratory specimens 

may include sputum (induced or 

expectorated), bronchial specimens 

(e.g., bronchoalveolar lavage or 

bronchial aspirate), or tracheal aspirates. 

(b) Classification. Class II (special 

controls). The special control for this 

device is the FDA document entitled 

‘‘Class II Special Controls Guideline: 

Nucleic Acid-Based In Vitro Diagnostic 

Devices for the Detection of 

Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex in 

Respiratory Specimens.’’ For availability 

of the guideline document, see 

§ 866.1(e). 

Dated: May 27, 2014. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12544 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0038; CFDA 

Number 84.015A] 

Final Priorities; National Resource 

Centers Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education (OPE), Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

announces two priorities for the 

National Resource Centers (NRC) 

Program administered by the 

International and Foreign Language 

Education Office. The 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 these 

priorities to address a gap in the types 

of institutions, faculty, and students that 

have historically benefited from the 

resources available at NRCs and to 

address a shortage in the number of 

teachers entering the teaching 

profession with global competency and 

world language training, certification, or 

credentials. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities 

are effective June 30, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cheryl E. Gibbs, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

6083, Washington, DC 20006, K–OPE– 

6078. 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, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The NRC 

Program provides grants to institutions 

of higher education or consortia of such 

institutions to establish, strengthen, and 

operate comprehensive and 

undergraduate foreign language and area 

or international studies centers that will 

be national resources for (a) teaching of 

any modern foreign language; (b) 

instruction in fields needed to provide 

full understanding of areas, regions, or 

countries in which the modern language 

is commonly used; (c) research and 

training in international studies and the 

international and foreign language 

aspects of professional and other fields 

of study; and (d) instruction and 

research on issues in world affairs that 

concern one or more countries. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR parts 655 and 656. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities for this program in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 

15077). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities. 

There are differences between the 

proposed priorities and these final 

priorities as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section 

elsewhere in this notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priorities, 25 parties submitted 

comments on the proposed priorities. 

We discuss substantive issues under 

the number of the item to which they 

pertain. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the priorities since 

publication of the notice of proposed 

priorities follows. 

Priority 1—Applications that propose 

significant and sustained collaborative 

activities with one or more MinorityServing Institutions (MSIs) or one or 

more community colleges 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that by defining an MSI for the purpose 

of this priority using eligibility under 

the programs authorized by Title III or 

Title V of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA), the 

Department unduly limits the pool of 

institutions with which NRCs could 

potentially collaborate. They also 

observed that opportunities to reach and 

impact substantially more 

underrepresented and underserved 

populations will be missed if NRC 

institutions only collaborate with 

institutions that are eligible to receive 

assistance under Title III or Title V of 

the HEA. The commenters suggested 

alternative strategies to give NRC 

institutions more flexibility in achieving 

the access and diversity goals of the 

priority. For example, one institutional 

commenter noted that there are no Title 

III or V institutions in its State, but, to 

fulfill its urban access mission, it serves 

high enrollments of low-income, 

underrepresented, and minority 

students through a long-standing 

partnership with the local public school 

system. When students from the local 

public school system are admitted as 

undergraduate students, they are 

familiar with, and more likely to 

participate in, area studies and world 

language courses and study abroad 

opportunities. The same commenter 

also noted that to support 

underrepresented, low-income, and 

underserved students, the institution 

has established valuable partnerships 

with local agencies so that a continuum 

of resources is available to low-income 

and minority students before and after 

they are admitted to the institution. The 

commenter suggested that encouraging 

grantees to devise innovative strategies 

and partnerships that respond to local 

circumstances in order to reach more 

low-income and minority students is 

more consistent with the Department’s 

emphasis on outcome-based 

performance measures than is requiring 

grantees to respond to a proscribed 

priority. 

A rural institution commented that it 

does not have an MSI or a community 

college in its geographic locale. It 

observed that partnerships with MSIs 

and community colleges should not be 

prioritized over a rural institution’s 

capacity to provide area studies courses 

and less commonly taught language 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31029 

training to undergraduate students who 

are underrepresented minorities. The 

commenter also suggested that, instead 

of requiring collaborative activities with 

MSIs or community colleges, an NRC 

should be able to meet the priority by 

incorporating international dimensions 

into the NRC institution’s 

undergraduate curriculum. According to 

the commenter, this would serve to 

attract and retain minority students and 

permit the NRC to focus its instruction 

and outreach efforts on 

underrepresented undergraduates on its 

campus, with the goal of increasing 

diversity in area studies programs. 

Two commenters observed that many 

NRC institutions independently serve 

high numbers of underrepresented, 

underserved, or minority students, and 

if they have to allocate limited financial 

resources to support external 

collaborative activities, this will further 

strain their budgets and divert 

institutional resources from their 

students who are equally deserving of 

international education training 

opportunities. Another commenter 

noted that although it is both an MSI 

and an NRC institution, its internal 

activities and programming to support 

underrepresented and underserved 

groups do not meet the intent of the 

priority because the priority focuses on 

proposing collaborative activities with 

other MSIs. The commenter suggested 

that, in cases where an NRC institution 

is also a Title III- or Title V-eligible MSI, 

this priority should allow such an 

institution to focus on intra-campus 

collaborative activities as well as on 

collaborative activities with other MSIs 

and community colleges. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concern that the definition 

of MSI is too narrow for the purpose of 

the priority and the alternative strategies 

they offered. However, we do not 

believe that the suggested strategies 

would achieve an important goal of this 

priority, which is to provide Title III 

and Title V institutions opportunities to 

access the resources available at Title VI 

institutions, through collaboration 

among Title III, Title V, and Title VI 

institutions. Further, institutions that 

are eligible to receive assistance under 

Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and 

Title V include Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 

predominately black institutions, 

Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal 

colleges, among others. Accordingly, 

NRC institutions have a variety of 

options for collaboration, covering a 

wide range of underrepresented and 

underserved populations. Considering 

that community colleges are also 

included in this priority, we believe that 

there is sufficient opportunity for 

applicants to meet this priority. We, 

therefore, do not agree that the 

definition of an MSI for the purposes of 

this priority is too narrow. 

We also believe that there are 

sufficient opportunities for 

collaboration between an NRC 

institution that is not in close proximity 

to MSIs or community colleges. For 

example, the institution may, among 

other things, use technology to connect 

with other institutions or offer faculty 

travel grants to bring faculty to the 

institution. 

In regard to the concerns about using 

limited NRC grant funds to conduct the 

collaboration activities described in the 

priority, we do not think that the 

activities, if planned cost-effectively, 

will require significant portions of grant 

funds. In addition, the goal is not only 

to reach underserved students but to 

support collaboration with Title III and 

Title V institutions to improve 

international education on their 

campuses. 

For an applicant that meets the 

definition of an MSI, we agree that it is 

appropriate to allow that institution to 

meet the priority by conducting intracampus collaborative activities instead 

of, or in addition to, collaborative 

activities with other MSIs or community 

colleges. An example of an intra-campus 

collaborative activity would be a project 

involving the faculty in the Department 

of Social Sciences and the Portuguese 

language instructors to develop a 

language across the curriculum course 

about food security issues in Latin 

America. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

language to permit institutions that are 

eligible under Title III or Title V to 

propose intra-campus collaborative 

activities instead of, or in addition to, 

collaborative activities with other MSIs 

or community colleges. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that it would be helpful if we provide 

a list of eligible Title III, part A, Title III, 

part B, and Title V institutions. 

Discussion: We agree that making this 

information readily available to 

applicants will help them in addressing 

and meeting this priority. 

Changes: None. We will provide the 

information on the institutions that 

currently meet this definition in the 

notice inviting applications. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we remove the 

singular modifier before MSI and before 

community college to clarify that 

collaborative activities may be proposed 

with more than one MSI or more than 

one community college. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion and are making 

this change to ensure we do not limit 

the number of entities that are able to 

collaborate under this priority. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to make it clear that an institution can 

collaborate with multiple MSIs or 

community colleges. 

Priority 2—Collaborative activities with 

schools or colleges of education 

Comment: All commenters expressed 

concern about priority 2 because many 

institutions of higher education do not 

have a school or college of education or 

do not provide pre-service teacher 

certification training. They further 

observed that at many institutions, preservice teacher training is offered 

through the schools of social sciences, 

liberal arts, or natural sciences, or the 

college of arts and sciences or through 

emerging models in teacher credential 

programs that are decentralized outside 

of the schools or colleges of education. 

The same commenters recommended 

that we revise the proposed priority to 

include options such as teacher 

credentialing programs, programs of 

teacher education, or post-baccalaureate 

programs. Three commenters 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to permit institutions that do 

not have schools or colleges of 

education to collaborate with 

institutions in their geographical 

location that have schools or colleges of 

education. Similarly, all commenters 

recommended that we expand the 

priority to allow applicants to propose 

collaborative activities with colleges or 

schools of education on or off the NRC 

campus. 

Discussion: We agree with these 

suggestions. We believe that these 

revisions will offer more flexibility and 

reflect how different institutions of 

higher education operate in practice, 

while ensuring that the intent and 

objectives of the priority are still met. In 

addition, we note that the units listed in 

the final priority are not exhaustive, 

meaning that an institution could also 

collaborate with similar types of units 

that are not specifically mentioned in 

the priority and institutions that are on 

or off the NRC campus. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to allow collaboration with units such 

as schools or colleges of education, 

schools of liberal arts and sciences, 

post-baccalaureate teacher education 

programs, and teacher preparation 

programs. We also have expanded the 

priority to permit collaborative activities 

with units or institutions that are on or 

off the NRC campus. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: Several commenters raised 

concerns that the priority does not take 

into consideration that there is a limited 

job market for new teachers with 

credentials to teach less commonly 

taught languages (LCTLs), partly 

because LCTLs are not integrated into 

kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) 

education or supported by the States. 

Specifically, one commenter noted 

that giving priority to NRCs that 

contribute to the training and 

credentialing of new teachers is 

particularly problematic for NRCs that 

focus on languages and world areas 

such as Southeast Asia (SEA), because 

world areas like SEA are almost entirely 

absent from State-mandated K–12 

curricula. The commenter further noted 

that through the training of Ph.D., 

Master of Arts, and Bachelor of Arts 

students, an NRC institution that 

focuses on SEA is educating the future 

post-secondary teachers of Southeast 

Asian Studies, thereby meeting a vital 

national interest. Similarly, another 

commenter cited the discontinuance of 

its Russian language teaching program 

due to low enrollment in the face of a 

weak job market. The commenter argued 

against encouraging students to pursue 

a teaching certification when there is no 

market for the credential. 

Another commenter recommended 

that we either eliminate the portion of 

the priority regarding credentialing 

more foreign language teachers or tailor 

the priority to those specific LCTLs that 

require additional teachers to meet 

existing and expected future 

instructional needs within the K–12 

system. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

remove the last clause in the proposed 

priority relating to the credentialing of 

foreign language teachers because the 

commenter believed that LCTL 

instruction is adequately addressed by 

the first clause regarding the integration 

of world languages into teacher 

education. The commenter stated that 

teachers who are hired to teach other 

content courses but who also have 

foreign language training often have the 

opportunity to expose students to 

LCTLs in conjunction with other 

teaching activities. The commenter 

further noted that the first part of the 

priority already addresses this indirect 

path by which the NRCs can support 

and encourage the inclusion of more 

language instruction in elementary 

through secondary school classrooms. 

Encouraging teachers in training to 

study LCTLs has the potential to 

increase the overall availability of 

instruction in LCTLs in regular 

classroom activities. 

Discussion: We do not agree that the 

portion of the priority relating to the 

credentialing of foreign language 

teachers is adequately addressed by the 

first part of the priority regarding the 

integration of world languages into 

teacher education. The preparation and 

credentialing of foreign language 

teachers in LCTLs is a distinct and 

formal process that might not 

necessarily occur under the broader 

collaboration categories in the first 

clause. We wish to encourage 

preparation and credentialing of foreign 

language teachers in LCTLs to the extent 

that there is demand for teachers of 

those languages, and therefore will 

maintain that option in the priority. 

Nonetheless, this activity is not required 

to meet this priority. 

However, the commenters have 

provided a sound rationale to revise the 

priority as it relates to the credentialing 

of foreign language teachers in LCTLs. 

We agree that, due to limited State 

support and the lack of integration of 

language teaching into elementary and 

secondary education nationwide, there 

is low or no demand for teachers of 

some LCTLs. Accordingly, we agree 

with the suggestion that we limit the 

priority to LCTLs for which there is a 

demand for additional teachers to meet 

existing and expected future K–12 

language program needs. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to allow applicants to focus their 

teacher preparation and credentialing 

efforts on those specific LCTLs for 

which there is a demand for additional 

teachers to meet existing and expected 

future K–12 language program needs. 

Final Priorities 

Priority 1 

Applications that propose significant 

and sustained collaborative activities 

with one or more Minority-Serving 

Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this 

notice) or with one or more community 

colleges (as defined in this notice). 

These activities must be designed to 

incorporate international, intercultural, 

or global dimensions into the 

curriculum at the MSI(s) or community 

college(s), and to improve foreign 

language, area, and international studies 

or international business instruction at 

the MSI(s) or community college(s). If 

an applicant institution is an MSI or a 

community college (as defined in this 

notice), that institution may propose 

intra-campus collaborative activities 

instead of, or in addition to, 

collaborative activities with other MSIs 

or community colleges. 

For the purpose of this priority: 

Community college means an 

institution that meets the definition in 

section 312(f) of the Higher Education 

Act 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. 

Priority 2 

Applications that propose 

collaborative activities with units such 

as schools or colleges of education, 

schools of liberal arts and sciences, 

post-baccalaureate teacher education 

programs, and teacher preparation 

programs on or off the national resource 

center campus. These collaborative 

activities are designed to support the 

integration of an international, 

intercultural, or global dimension and 

world languages into teacher education 

and/or to promote the preparation and 

credentialing of more foreign language 

teachers in less commonly taught 

languages (LCTLs) for which there is a 

demand for additional teachers to meet 

existing and expected future 

kindergarten through grade 12 language 

program needs. 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31031 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, we 

invite applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. You may also 

access documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register by 

using the article search feature at: 

www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: May 27, 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. 2014–12583 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0035] 

Final Priority; Foreign Language and 

Area Studies Fellowships Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

[CFDA Number: 84.015B.] 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

announces a priority under the Foreign 

Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

(FLAS) Program administered by the 

International and Foreign Language 

Education (IFLE) Office. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. 

We take this action to lower 

postsecondary education costs for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES