9414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Carnavale, A., Smith, N., Strohl, J., Help 

Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of 

this AD, using methods approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(1) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, record the existing fault codes 

stored in the FQIS processor and then do a 

BITE check (check of built-in test equipment) 

of the FQIS, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 757–28–0136, dated June 5, 

2014. If any fault codes are recorded prior to 

the BITE check or as a result of the BITE 

check, before further flight, do all applicable 

repairs and repeat the BITE check until a 

successful test is performed with no faults 

found, in accordance with Boeing Service 

Bulletin 757–28–0136, dated June 5, 2014. 

Repeat these actions thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 750 flight hours. 

(2) Within 72 months after the effective 

date of this AD, modify the airplane by 

separating FQIS wiring that runs between the 

FQIS processor and the center fuel tank, 

including any circuits that might pass 

through a main fuel tank, from other airplane 

wiring that is not intrinsically safe. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6506; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: jon.regimbal@faa.gov. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 18, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03540 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Selection Criterion, and Definitions— 

First in the World Program 

CFDA Numbers: 84.116F and 84.116X 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education proposes 

priorities, requirements, a selection 

criterion, and definitions under the First 

in the World (FITW) Program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use these 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criterion, and definitions for FITW 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 

and later years. These priorities, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions would enable the 

Department to focus the FITW program 

on identified barriers to student success 

in postsecondary education and 

advance the program’s purpose to build 

evidence for what works in 

postsecondary education through 

development, evaluation, and 

dissemination of innovative strategies to 

support students who are at risk of 

failure in persisting in and completing 

their postsecondary programs of study. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 25, 2015. 

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. 

• 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 Frank 

Frankfort, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

6166, Washington, DC 20006. 

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: 

Frank Frankfort. Telephone: (202) 502– 

7513 or email: frank.frankfort@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 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

selection criterion, and definitions, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

selection criterion or definition 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, requirements, selection 

criterion, or definitions. 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 by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person in room 6164, 

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. Please contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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: Earning a 

postsecondary degree or credential is a 

prerequisite for the growing jobs of the 

new economy and the clearest pathway 

to the middle class. Average earnings of 

college graduates are almost twice as 

high as that of workers with only a high 

school diploma and, over this decade, 

employment in jobs requiring education 

beyond a high school diploma will grow 

more rapidly than employment in jobs 

that do not.1


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9415 

Requirements Through 2018. Georgetown Center on 

Education and the Workforce, 2010. 

2National Center for Education Statistics. ‘‘Total 

fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, 

and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 

through 2012.’’ Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/ 

programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.asp. 

3National Center for Education Statistics. 

‘‘Percentage of recent high school completers 

enrolled in 2-year and 4-year colleges, by income 

level: 1975 through 2012.’’ Retrieved from: http:// 

nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_

302.30.asp. 

4National Center for Education Statistics. 

‘‘Percentage distribution of first-time postsecondary 

students starting at 2- and 4-year institutions during 

the 2003–04 academic year, by highest degree 

attained, enrollment status, and selected 

characteristics: Spring 2009.’’ Retrieved from: 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/

dt13_326.40.asp. 

5 Id. 

6U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community 

Survey. 

7Organization of Economic Co-operation and 

Development, Education at a Glance 2014. 

8U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Profile of 

Undergraduate Students: 2007–08. National Center 

for Education Statistics: 2010–205. Washington DC. 

But today, even though college 

enrollment has increased by 50 percent 

since 1990, from almost 14 million 

students to almost 21 million students, 

and despite the importance of a 

postsecondary education to financial 

security for American families and for 

the national economy to grow and 

remain competitive in the global 

economy, only 40 percent of Americans 

hold a postsecondary degree.2 While the 

vast majority of high school graduates 

from the wealthiest American families 

continue on to higher education, only 

half of high school graduates from the 

poorest families attend college.3 About 

60 percent of students at four-year 

institutions earn a bachelor’s degree 

within six years.4 For low-income 

students, the prospects are even worse 

as only 40 percent reach completion.5

Almost 37 million Americans report 

‘‘some college, no degree’’ as their 

highest level of education.6 Due to these 

outcomes, the U.S. has been outpaced 

internationally in higher education. In 

1990, the U.S. ranked first in the world 

in four-year degree attainment among 

25–34 year olds; in 2012, the U.S. 

ranked 12th.7

Recognizing these factors, President 

Obama set a goal for the country that 

America will once again have the 

highest proportion of college graduates 

in the world. To support this national 

effort, the Administration has outlined a 

comprehensive agenda that includes 

expanding opportunity and increasing 

quality at all levels of education, from 

early learning through higher education. 

The FITW program is a key part of this 

agenda. 

Unlike in previous generations, adult 

learners, working students, part-time 

students, students from low-income 

backgrounds, students of color, and 

first-generation students now make up 

the majority of students in college.8

Ensuring that these students persist in 

and complete their postsecondary 

education is essential to meeting our 

nation’s educational challenges. 

However, the traditional methods and 

practices of the country’s higher 

education system have typically not 

been focused on ensuring successful 

outcomes for these students, and too 

little is known about what strategies are 

most effective for addressing key 

barriers that prevent these students from 

persisting and completing. 

The FITW program addresses these 

problems by supporting the 

development of innovative solutions to 

persistent and widespread challenges in 

postsecondary education, particularly 

those that affect adult learners, working 

students, part-time students, students 

from low-income backgrounds, students 

of color, and first-generation students, 

and building evidence for what works in 

postsecondary education by testing the 

effectiveness of these strategies in 

improving student persistence and 

completion outcomes. Similar to the 

Department’s Investing in Innovation 

Fund, which supports innovation and 

evidence building in elementary and 

secondary education, a key element of 

the FITW program is its multi-tier 

structure that links the amount of 

funding that an applicant may receive to 

the quality of evidence supporting the 

efficacy of the proposed project. 

Applicants proposing practices 

supported by limited evidence can 

receive relatively small grants 

(Development grants) that support the 

development and initial evaluation of 

innovative but untested strategies. 

Applicants proposing practices 

supported by evidence from rigorous 

evaluations can receive larger grants 

(Validation and Scale-up grants), in 

amounts commensurate to the level of 

supporting evidence, for 

implementation at greater scale to test 

whether initially successful strategies 

remain effective when adopted in varied 

locations and with large and diverse 

groups of students. This structure 

provides incentives for applicants to 

build evidence of effectiveness of their 

proposed projects and to address the 

barriers to serving large numbers of 

students within institutions and across 

systems, States, regions, or the country. 

Additionally, the Department is 

exploring ways to accelerate the 

progress of building evidence for 

effective strategies that improve college 

completion through rapid scaling by 

allowing larger awards in lower tiers for 

college and university systems and 

consortia that collaborate with leading 

experts to test and rigorously evaluate 

the most promising strategies at 

multiple sites. 

All FITW projects are required to use 

part of their budgets to conduct 

independent evaluations (as defined in 

this notice) of their projects. This 

ensures that projects funded under the 

FITW program contribute significantly 

to improving the information available 

to practitioners and policymakers about 

which practices work, for which types 

of students, and in what contexts. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138– 

1138d. 

Background: The proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions for the FITW program set 

forth in this notice would better enable 

the Department to achieve the purpose 

and goals of the FITW program by 

creating mechanisms to direct funding 

to priority areas of work that address the 

most important challenges in 

postsecondary education and, 

additionally, set evidence and 

evaluation requirements. There are 

currently no such program-specific 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, or definitions for the FITW 

program. 

Proposed Priorities: This notice 

contains nine proposed priorities. In 

any grant competition under this 

program, the Secretary may use, 

individually or in combination, one or 

more of these priorities or subparts of 

these priorities, priorities from the final 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

for discretionary grant programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), and 

priorities based on the statutory 

requirements for the Fund for the 

Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education (FIPSE). 

Background: The proposed priorities 

correspond to what the Department 

believes are the greatest current 

challenges in postsecondary education 

and most important areas of work 

seeking to address barriers to 

postsecondary student success. As 

provided under 34 CFR 75.105, these 

priorities may be used by the 

Department as absolute or competitive 

preference priorities in grant 

competitions for the FITW program in 

FY 2015 and later years to direct FITW 

funds to projects that address these 

identified challenges and areas of work. 

In addition, we may also use priorities 

from the Department’s final 

supplemental priorities and definitions 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/ 

attachments/referral-enrollment-completiondevelopmental.pdf. 

10U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12), 

Profile of Undergraduate Students 2011–12, Table 

6.2. Report available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ 

pubs2015/2015167.pdf. 

11MDRC, Unlocking the Gate, June 2011. Article 

available at: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/ 

files/full_595.pdf. 

12Attewell, P. A., Lavin, D. E., Domina, T., & 

Levey, T. 2006. New Evidence on College 

Remediation. The Journal of Higher Education. 

Article available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 

3838791. 

13http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/ 

attachments/referral-enrollment-completiondevelopmental.pdf. 

14http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ 

full_595.pdf. 

15Complete College America. 2012. Remediation: 

Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere. Report 

available at: http://www.completecollege.org/ 

resources_and_reports/. 

16Complete College America. 2012. Remediation: 

Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere. 

17Bailey, T. 2009. Challenge and Opportunity: 

Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental 

Education in Community College. In New 

Directions for Community Colleges. (Available 

Article available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ 

doi/10.1002/cc.352/pdf. 

for discretionary grant programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) 

(Supplemental Priorities), as absolute or 

competitive preference priorities in the 

FITW program. Accordingly, we are not 

proposing priorities in this notice that 

are already included in the 

Supplemental Priorities. 

Establishing program-specific 

priorities would provide the Department 

the option to focus a particular year’s 

FITW grant competition on any or all (or 

none) of the policy areas set forth in 

those priorities. For each year that new 

funds are available under the FITW 

program, the Department would 

determine which, if any, of the priorities 

to include in the grant competition. 

The proposed priorities are organized 

so that the Department has the 

flexibility to determine the area of focus 

for the priority. For example, with 

respect to Proposed Priority 1— 

Improving Success in Developmental 

Education, the Department could 

choose to include in a notice inviting 

applications a competitive preference 

priority for any type of project that seeks 

to improve outcomes in developmental 

education by using the broadest 

language in the priority: 

• (Example) Competitive Preference 

Priority: Improving Success in 

Developmental Education—Projects 

designed to improve student success in 

developmental education or accelerate 

student progress into credit bearing 

postsecondary courses. 

Or, we could choose more specific 

language from the priority to target a 

particular aspect of developmental 

education reform by choosing to also 

include one of the subparts of Proposed 

Priority 1: 

• (Example) Competitive Preference 

Priority: Improving Success in 

Developmental Education—Projects 

designed to improve student success in 

developmental education or accelerate 

student progress into credit bearing 

postsecondary courses through 

redesigning developmental education 

courses or programs through strategies 

such as contextualization of 

developmental coursework together 

with occupational or college-content 

coursework. 

We may also use priorities in 

combination with each other in a notice 

inviting applications. For example, a 

competitive preference priority for low 

cost, high impact strategies (Proposed 

Priority 6—Implementing Low Cost-High 

Impact Strategies to Improve Student 

Outcomes) that influence non-cognitive 

factors (Supplemental Priority 2— 

Influencing the Development of Noncognitive Factors) could be included as 

follows: 

• (Example) Competitive Preference 

Priority: To meet this competitive 

preference priority, an applicant must 

meet both sections (A) and (B) of this 

priority. 

(A) Implementing Low Cost-High 

Impact Strategies to Improve Student 

Outcomes—Projects that use low cost 

tools or strategies, such as those that use 

technology, that result in a high impact 

on student outcomes. 

(B) Influencing the Development of 

Non-cognitive Factors—Projects that are 

designed to improve students’ mastery 

of non-cognitive skills and behaviors 

(such as academic behaviors, academic 

mindset, perseverance, self-regulation, 

social and emotional skills, and 

approaches toward learning strategies) 

and enhance student motivation and 

engagement in learning. 

With respect to the proposed 

priorities, the Department is particularly 

interested in brief comments responding 

to the following questions: 

• Do the proposed priorities 

sufficiently address the greatest 

challenges and barriers to postsecondary 

student success? 

• Do the subparts for each proposed 

priority adequately capture the most 

promising aspects of the policy topic 

area of each priority? 

Proposed Priorities: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes the 

following priorities for this program. In 

any grant competition under this 

program, the Secretary may use, 

individually or in combination, one or 

more of these priorities or subparts of 

these priorities, priorities from the final 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

for discretionary grant programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), and 

priorities based on the statutory 

requirements for the Fund for the 

Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education (FIPSE). 

Proposed Priority 1—Improving 

Success in Developmental Education. 

Background: ‘‘Developmental’’ 

courses are instructional courses, 

typically non-credit bearing, designed 

for students deficient in the general 

competencies necessary for a regular 

postsecondary curriculum. The most 

common developmental courses to 

which beginning students are referred 

are math and reading/writing.9 It is 

estimated that almost one-third of all 

students take some form of 

developmental course.10 While 

participation rates vary widely across 

States and institution types, lowincome, African-American, and 

Hispanic students are referred to 

developmental courses at much higher 

rates.11 12 13

Developmental education is one of the 

leading barriers to postsecondary 

persistence and completion.14

Discouraged by the inability to enroll in 

courses that will allow them to earn 

credit and advance in their programs of 

study, many students never even enroll 

in the developmental courses to which 

they are referred.15 For those students 

that do enroll in developmental courses, 

the majority do not complete them, 

eventually dropping out of 

postsecondary education altogether.16 17

Promising new practices in 

developmental math education that 

have shown greater learning gains and 

success in credit-bearing coursework by 

students indicate that the traditional 

sequence, teaching, and content of 

developmental coursework has been 

ineffective in supporting student 

mastery of the material. 

A number of institutions are making 

great effort to reform traditional 

developmental education with 

promising results that would benefit 

from more rigorous evaluation, in part 

to determine their effectiveness on 

student performance, persistence, and 

completion, but also to identify effective 

implementation strategies. Further, for 

the interventions that have produced 

evidence of positive impacts on student 

outcomes, almost none have been 

replicated and evaluated at scale. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9417 

18 Xianglei Chen and others, Academic 

Preparation for College in the High School Senior 

Class of 2003–04: Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS: 2002), Base-year, 2002, First Follow-up, 

2004, and High School Transcript Study, 2004 

(Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics, January 

2010); Jay Greene and Greg Foster, ‘‘Public High 

School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in 

the United States,’’ Working Paper 3 (New York: 

Manhattan Institute, Center for Civic Information, 

Education, September 2003). Greene and Foster 

define being minimally ‘‘college ready’’ as: 

graduating from high school, having taken four 

years of English, three years of mathematics, and 

two years of science, social science, and foreign 

language, and demonstrating basic literacy skills by 

scoring at least 265 points on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress in reading. 

19Eric Bettinger and Bridget Terry Long, 

‘‘Addressing the Needs of Under-Prepared College 

Students: Does College Remediation Work?’’ Journal 

of Human Resources 44, no. 3 (2009); Brian Jacob 

and Lars Lefgren, ‘‘Remedial Education and Student 

Achievement: A Regression-Discontinuity 

Analysis,’’ Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 

no. 1 (2004): 226–44. 

20Arum, Richard and Roksa, Josipa, 

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College 

Campuses (University of Chicago Press, January 

2011). 

21Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, ‘‘Are 

Undergraduates Actually Learning Anything?’’ 

Chronicle of Higher Education, January 18, 2011. 

Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/AreUndergraduates-Actually/125979/. 

22National Center for Education Statistics. 

‘‘Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room 

and board rates charged for full-time students in 

degree-granting institutions, by level and control of 

institution: 1969–70 through 2011–12.’’ Retrieved 

from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/

tables/dt12_381.asp. 

Proposed Priority 1—Improving 

Success in Developmental Education. 

Proposed Priority: The Secretary gives 

priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve 

student success in developmental 

education or accelerate student progress 

into credit bearing postsecondary 

courses; or, 

(b) Projects designed to improve 

student success in developmental 

education or accelerate student progress 

into credit bearing postsecondary 

courses through one or more of the 

following: 

(i) Identifying and treating academic 

needs prior to postsecondary 

enrollment, including while in middle 

or high school, through strategies such 

as partnerships between K–12 and 

postsecondary institutions; 

(ii) Diagnosing students’ 

developmental education needs at the 

time of or after postsecondary 

enrollment, such as by developing 

alternatives to single measure placement 

strategies, and identifying specific 

content gaps in order to customize 

instruction to an individual student’s 

needs; 

(iii) Offering alternative pathways in 

mathematics, such as non-Algebra based 

coursework for non-math and science 

fields. 

(iv) Accelerating students’ progress in 

completing developmental education, 

through strategies such as modularized, 

fast-tracked, or self-paced courses or 

placing students whose academic 

performance is one or more levels below 

that required for credit-bearing courses 

into credit-bearing courses with 

academic supports; 

(v) Redesigning developmental 

education courses or programs through 

strategies such as contextualization of 

developmental coursework together 

with occupational or college-content 

coursework; 

(vi) Integrating academic and other 

supports for students in developmental 

education. 

Proposed Priority 2—Improving 

Teaching and Learning. 

Background: A large percentage of 

students in postsecondary education 

struggle academically because they 

arrive to college unprepared for collegelevel coursework.18 These struggles 

make the prospect of dropping out more 

likely.19 Further, for students that do 

complete, the limited available 

information on learning proficiency 

suggests that too many students are 

lacking the critical thinking, analytical, 

and communication skills needed for 

the modern workforce.20 Some research 

indicates that as much as a third of 

students show no high-order cognitive 

learning gains over the course of their 

undergraduate educations.21

These deficits are accompanied by a 

decline in productivity in higher 

education. Controlling for inflation, the 

cost of attending college has more than 

doubled over the past three decades.22

Despite these challenges, which are 

felt more acutely by the types of 

students that now make up the majority 

of students enrolled in postsecondary 

education, adult learners, working 

students, part-time students, students 

from low-income backgrounds, students 

of color, and first-generation students, 

there has been little change in the 

methods of teaching and instruction, as 

well as how students experience 

learning in college. With some 

exceptions, the same degrees and other 

credentials are offered in the same way, 

by counting up the amount of hours 

students are taught. Methods of teaching 

have stayed largely static. Given the 

poor outcomes many students are 

experiencing, new approaches to 

teaching and learning, using new tools 

and strategies that can help customize 

learning to accommodate diverse 

learning styles, are needed at all levels 

of postsecondary education to improve 

accessibility and quality and reduce 

cost. 

Proposed Priority 2: Improving 

Teaching and Learning. 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve 

teaching and learning; or, 

(b) Projects designed to improve 

teaching and learning through one or 

more of the following: 

(i) Instruction-level tools or strategies 

such as adaptive learning technology, 

educational games, personalized 

learning, active- or project-based 

learning, faculty-centered strategies that 

systematically improve the quality of 

teaching, or multi-disciplinary efforts 

focused on improving instructional 

experiences; 

(ii) Program-level strategies such as 

competency-based programs that are 

designed with faculty, industry, 

employer, and expert engagement, use 

rigorous methods to define 

competencies, and utilize externally 

validated assessments, online or 

blended programs, or joint offering of 

programs across institutions; 

(iii) Institution-level tools or strategies 

such as faculty-centered strategies to 

improve teaching across an institution, 

use of open educational resources 

across, or tailoring academic content 

and delivery to serve the needs of nontraditional students. 

Proposed Priority 3—Improving 

Student Support Services. 

Background: Almost all secondary 

schools and institutions of higher 

education offer a diverse array of 

student support services to assist with 

college preparation, application and 

enrollment, financial aid, academic 

barriers and other issues related to 

access, persistence, and completion. 

The range of services and support is 

extensive, and include interventions 

both inside and outside the classroom 

and campus. Many of these services are 

also provided by outside organizations, 

including non-profits. Further, several 

of the Department’s programs, including 

TRIO, GEAR UP, and the Aid for 

Institutional Development programs, 

provide funding for student and 

academic support services. 

However, few student support 

services strategies have been rigorously 

evaluated. Given the need to improve 

outcomes, particularly for adult 

learners, working students, part-time 

students, students from low-income 

backgrounds, students of color, and 

first-generation students, new and 

innovative approaches are needed, 

including those that are cost effective, 

so that a greater number of students can 

be served. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

23 Dynarski, S.(2003). Does Aid Matter? 

Measuring the Effects of Student Aid on College 

Attendance and Completion. American Economic 

Review. 

24 Dynarski, S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). 

Financial aid policy: Lessons from Research. The 

Future of Children. Postsecondary Education in the 

United States. Vol 23. No. 1. 

Proposed Priority 3: Improving 

Student Support Services. 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve the 

supports or services provided to 

students prior to or during the students’ 

enrollment in postsecondary education; 

or, 

(b) Projects designed to improve the 

supports or services provided to 

students prior to or during the students’ 

enrollment in postsecondary education 

through one or more of the following: 

(i) Integrating student support 

services, including with academic 

advising and instruction; 

(ii) Individualizing or personalizing 

support services such as advising, 

coaching, tutoring, or mentoring to 

students and their identified needs 

using tools or strategies such as 

predictive analytics to identify students 

who may need specific supports, or 

behavioral interventions used to provide 

timely, relevant, and actionable 

information for students at critical 

points such as when they may be at risk 

of dropping out; 

(iii) Connecting students to resources 

or services other than those typically 

provided by postsecondary institutions, 

such as providing assistance in 

accessing government benefits, 

transportation assistance, medical, 

health, or nutritional resources and 

services, child care, housing, or legal 

services; 

(iv) Utilizing technology such as 

digital messaging to provide supports or 

services systematically. 

Proposed Priority 4—Developing and 

Using Assessments of Learning. 

Background: Learning assessment has 

shown promise as an effective 

instructional strategy to increase student 

success. While learning assessment, in 

the past, focused more on traditional 

testing, current assessment has 

expanded to assess not just what 

students know but also what they can 

do. Further, a knowledge-based 

economy requires assessment of higherorder thinking skills such as recall, 

analysis, comparison, inference, 

application, and evaluation. New forms 

of assessments must be developed for 

these purposes. Assessments are also 

needed to measure what is learned 

outside the classroom, such as through 

previous work experience. 

Proposed Priority 4: Developing and 

Using Assessments of Learning. 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects that support the 

development and use of externally 

validated assessments of student 

learning and stated learning goals; or, 

(b) Projects that support the 

development and use of externally 

validated assessments of student 

learning and stated learning goals 

through one or more of the following: 

(i) Alternative assessment tools or 

strategies such as micro- or competencybased assessments, assessments 

embedded in curriculum, or 

simulations, games, or other technologybased assessment approaches; 

(ii) Professional development or 

training of faculty on the approaches to 

developing, using, and interpreting 

assessments; 

(iii) Combining or sequencing 

assessments from multiple sources to 

strengthen diagnostic capabilities; 

(iv) Aligning assessments across 

sectors and institutions, such as across 

kindergarten through grade 12 and 

postsecondary education systems or 

across 2-year and 4-year institutions, to 

improve college-readiness and content 

delivery; 

(v) Open-source assessments. 

Proposed Priority 5—Facilitating 

Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer. 

Background: Students obtain 

knowledge and skills through a variety 

of experiences and from a range of 

institutions and providers. Many 

postsecondary students attend more 

than one institution on their way to 

earning a certificate or degree. Although 

increasing numbers of States and 

educational institutions are entering 

into articulation agreements to facilitate 

credit transfer, too many students 

continue to lose time and incur 

additional expense due to lost credits 

when transferring between institutions. 

Further, many student learning 

experiences, such as learning that 

occurs through work experience or from 

non-traditional education providers, are 

simply not recognized. 

Alternate systems and methods of 

assessing, aggregating, and credentialing 

learning experiences are needed to help 

more students reach completion in 

accelerated timeframes. Additionally, 

new systems of portable, stackable 

postsecondary degrees and credentials 

along transparent career pathways must 

be designed and opportunities to obtain 

such degrees and credential must be 

expanded. 

Proposed Priority 5: Facilitating 

Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer. 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to develop and 

implement systems and practices to 

capture and aggregate credit or other 

evidence of knowledge and skills 

towards postsecondary degrees or 

credentials; or, 

(b) Projects designed to develop and 

implement systems and practices to 

capture and aggregate credit or other 

evidence of knowledge and skills 

towards postsecondary degrees or 

credentials through one or more of the 

following: 

(i) Seamless transfer of credits 

between postsecondary institutions; 

(ii) Validation and transfer of credit 

for learning or learning experiences 

from non-institutional sources; 

(iii) Alternate credentialing or badging 

frameworks; 

(iv) Opportunities for students to earn 

college credits prior to postsecondary 

enrollment, such as through dual 

enrollment, dual degree, dual 

admission, or early college programs. 

Proposed Priority 6—Increasing the 

Effectiveness of Financial Aid. 

Background: The federal government, 

States, and institutions make a wide 

range of financial aid in the form of 

grants, loans, and tax credits available to 

students pursuing postsecondary 

education. Evidence shows that 

lowering the costs of college, the result 

of student aid, can improve access and 

completion.23 Indeed, since the 

adoption of the Higher Education Act 

almost 50 years ago, average aid per 

student has more than tripled, from 

$3,347 in 1971–72 to $12,455 in 2010– 

11 (in constant 2010 dollars), while fulltime equivalent enrollment has more 

than doubled, from about 6.2 million in 

1971–72 to 14.2 million in 2010–11.24

But, this conclusion is not without 

exception. Due to the numerous types of 

aid that are available, the range of 

sources, and the detailed application 

process, the financial aid system is 

complex. This complexity may have the 

unintended effect of creating barriers to 

access, one of the very problems that 

financial aid is designed to address. 

Further, some types of aid may have a 

greater impact on outcomes than others, 

achievement incentives may help 

improve persistence and completion, 

and in the case of loans, levels of debt 

may influence student decisions. In 

general, the effectiveness of financial 

aid is impacted by a number of factors 

including the design and delivery of aid 

programs, the level of understanding by 

students and families of costs and 

availability of aid, and the ability of 

students and families to navigate the 

application process and make optimal 

decisions. New and innovative 

strategies and tools that address these 

realities to maximize the effectiveness of 

financial aid are needed. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9419 

Proposed Priority 6: Increasing the 

Effectiveness of Financial Aid. The 

Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve the 

effectiveness of financial aid. 

(b) Projects designed to improve the 

effectiveness of financial aid through 

one or more of the following: 

(i) Counseling, advising, creation of 

information and resources, and other 

support activities on higher education 

financing and financial literacy 

delivered by financial aid offices or 

integrated with other support services 

provided by institutions, including on 

student loan repayment options such as 

income driven repayment plans and 

public service loan forgiveness and debt 

management; 

(ii) Personalized approaches to 

financial aid delivery, counseling, 

advising, and other support activities 

which may include early warning 

systems, use of predictive analytics, 

need based aid, emergency aid, or 

bonuses or other incentives for 

successful outcomes such as on-time 

academic progress and completion. 

Note: As with any project supported by the 

FITW program, grantees may not disburse 

project funds under this priority to students 

for the purpose of providing student aid. 

FITW funds may be used to pay project costs 

such as costs for the design, administration, 

and evaluation of aid programs or financial 

aid strategies. 

Proposed Priority 7—Implementing 

Low Cost-High Impact Strategies To 

Improve Student Outcomes. 

Background: Given the limited 

resources of secondary schools, 

institutions of higher education, and 

other relevant stakeholders, the cost 

effectiveness of any intervention 

designed to improve student outcomes 

is of primary importance. In recent 

years, numerous institutions, 

researchers, and others have begun 

testing interventions that are relatively 

low cost but have the ability to have a 

high impact on student outcomes. Many 

of these interventions minimize cost 

through the use of technology, such as 

digital messaging. Others incorporate 

low cost approaches, such as noncognitive interventions. We are 

particularly interested in effective low 

cost interventions because even 

institutions with limited resources 

would be able to scale such strategies to 

impact large numbers of students, and, 

such interventions, particularly those 

that use technology, are often easily 

replicable. This proposed priority could 

be used in combination with other 

priorities. 

Proposed Priority 7: Implementing 

Low Cost-High Impact Strategies To 

Improve Student Outcomes. The 

Secretary gives priority to projects that 

use low cost tools or strategies, such as 

those that use technology, that result in 

a high impact on student outcomes. 

Proposed Priority 8—Improving 

Postsecondary Student Outcomes at 

Minority-Serving Institutions. 

Background: Minority-serving 

institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this 

notice), including Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 

enroll a significant and disproportionate 

share of students from low-income 

backgrounds, students of color, and 

first-generation students. As the goal of 

the FITW program is to identify 

strategies that work in improving the 

postsecondary outcomes of these 

students, and because, in some cases, 

MSIs face unique challenges, it is 

important that the FITW program 

supports projects at MSIs. Accordingly, 

the Department proposes this priority to 

prioritize projects at MSIs. This 

proposed priority could be used as an 

absolute priority to set aside a specific 

amount of funds to support projects at 

MSIs, or to give competitive preference 

points to applicants that are MSIs. The 

lead applicant under this proposed 

priority must be an MSI. 

Proposed Priority 8: Improving 

Postsecondary Student Outcomes at 

Minority-Serving Institutions. The 

Secretary gives priority to projects 

designed to improve student outcomes 

at Minority-Serving Institutions (as 

defined in this notice). 

Proposed Priority 9—Systems and 

Consortia Focused on Large-Scale 

Impact. 

Background: The Department is 

including this proposed priority to 

encourage the formation of college 

consortia and systems that can 

collaborate with leading experts to 

implement promising strategies that 

address key barriers to completion. This 

would allow applicants to increase the 

number of students participating in or 

impacted by a project and would allow 

for development, testing, and robust 

evaluation of projects at multiple sites 

whose results could be more rapidly 

generalized and applied to other 

institutions. While Validation and 

Scale-up projects would be designed to 

serve relatively larger numbers of 

students across multiple institutions, 

Development projects may be more 

limited in scope so long as they have the 

sample size necessary to meet the 

proposed requirements for evaluation 

design described below. Encouraging 

greater collaboration with other 

institutions and partners would enable 

postsecondary institutions and systems 

to expand the number of students 

served by a project, more rapidly 

improve the quality and applicability of 

the evidence produced from the 

required evaluations, and encourage 

efforts in the field to work across 

networks to share emergent effective 

practices across the higher education 

enterprise. 

Proposed Priority 9: Systems and 

Consortia Focused on Large-Scale 

Impact. The Secretary gives priority to 

projects that involve consortia of 

institutions, including across a college 

or university system, and partnerships 

with leading experts that are 

implemented at multiple sites with large 

sample sizes to allow for more rapid 

development, evaluation, and scaling of 

practices determined to be effective. 

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)). 

Proposed Requirements, Selection 

Criterion, and Definitions: 

This notice contains eight proposed 

requirements, one proposed selection 

criterion, and three proposed 

definitions. 

Background: The proposed 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions would allow the Department 

to set the eligibility, evidence, and 

evaluation expectations for grant 

recipients under the FITW program. We 

may also use requirements, selection 

criteria, or definitions from 34 CFR parts 

75 and 77 and other sections of the 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). 

Accordingly, we are not proposing 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions in this notice that are 

already included in EDGAR. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The Department may award three 

types of grants under this program: 

‘‘Development’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ 

grants, and ‘‘Scale-up’’ grants. These 

grants differ in terms of the level of 

prior evidence of effectiveness required 

for consideration of funding, the level of 

scale the funded project should reach, 

and, consequently, the amount of 

funding available to support the project. 

We provide an overview to clarify our 

expectations for each grant type: 

(1) Development grants provide 

funding to support the development or 

testing of processes, products, strategies, 

or practices that are supported by 

relatively less evidence, likely strong 

theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) or 

evidence of promise (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)), and whose efficacy should 

be systematically studied. Development 

grants would support new or 

substantially more effective practices for 

addressing widely shared challenges. 

Development projects are novel and 

significant nationally, not projects that 

simply implement existing practices in 

additional locations or support needs 

that are primarily local in nature. 

All Development grantees must 

evaluate the effectiveness of the project 

at the level of scale required in the 

notice inviting applications under 

which they applied. 

(2) Validation grants provide funding 

to expand projects supported by greater 

evidence than would be required for a 

development grant, likely moderate 

evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c)), to multiple sites such 

as multiple institutions. Validation 

grants must further assess the 

effectiveness of the FITW-supported 

practice through a rigorous evaluation, 

with particular focus on the populations 

for and the contexts in which the 

practice is most effective. We expect 

and consider it appropriate that each 

applicant would propose to use the 

Validation funding to build its capacity 

to deliver the FITW-supported practice, 

particularly early in the funding period, 

to successfully reach the level of scale 

proposed in its application. 

Additionally, we expect each applicant 

to address any specific barriers to the 

growth or scaling of the organization or 

practice (including barriers related to 

cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver 

the FITW-supported practice at the 

proposed level of scale and provide 

strategies to address these barriers as 

part of its proposed scaling plan. 

All Validation grantees must evaluate 

the effectiveness of the practice that the 

supported project implements and 

expands. We expect that these 

evaluations would be conducted in a 

variety of contexts and for a variety of 

students, would identify the core 

elements of the practice, and would 

codify the practices to support adoption 

or replication by the applicant and other 

entities. 

(3) Scale-up grants provide funding to 

expand projects supported by greater 

evidence than would be required for 

Development or Validation grants, likely 

strong evidence of effectiveness (as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), and to a 

larger number of sites than would be 

required for a Development or 

Validation grant, such as across a 

system of institutions, across 

institutions in a State, a region, or 

nationally, or across institutions in a 

labor market sector. In addition to 

improving outcomes for an increasing 

number of high-need students, Scale-up 

grants will generate information about 

the students and contexts for which a 

practice is most effective. We expect 

that Scale-up grants would increase 

practitioners’ and policymakers’ 

understanding of strategies that allow 

organizations or practices to expand 

quickly and efficiently while 

maintaining their effectiveness. 

Similar to Validation grants, all Scaleup grantees must evaluate the 

effectiveness of the FITW-supported 

practice that the project implements and 

expands; this is particularly important 

in instances in which the proposed 

project includes changing the FITWsupported practice in order to more 

efficiently reach the proposed level of 

scale (for example, by developing 

technology-enabled training tools). The 

evaluation of a Scale-up grant must 

identify the core elements of, and 

codify, the FITW-supported practice 

that the project implements to support 

adoption or replication by other entities. 

We also expect that evaluations of 

Scale-up grants would be conducted in 

a variety of contexts and for a variety of 

students in order to determine the 

context(s) and population(s) for which 

the FITW-supported practice is most 

effective. 

With respect to the proposed 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions, the Department is 

particularly interested in brief 

comments responding to the following 

questions: 

• Are there a sufficient number of 

postsecondary strategies or 

interventions addressing important 

challenges in postsecondary education 

that are supported by moderate 

evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c)), the likely evidence 

standard requirement that would be 

assigned by the Department to a 

competition for Validation grants, to 

warrant making Validation grants 

available in the FY 2015 FITW grant 

competition? The Department 

encourages commenters responding to 

this question to provide citations or 

links to any studies they believe would 

meet the moderate evidence of 

effectiveness standard. 

• Are there a sufficient number of 

postsecondary strategies or 

interventions addressing important 

challenges in postsecondary education 

that are supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)), the likely evidence standard 

requirement that would be assigned by 

the Department to a competition for 

Scale-up grants, to warrant making 

Scale-up grants available in the FY 2015 

FITW grant competition? The 

Department encourages commenters 

responding to this question to provide 

citations or links to any studies they 

believe would meet the strong evidence 

of effectiveness standard. 

• Which of the proposed priorities 

should be included as absolute or 

competitive preference priorities in the 

FY 2015 FITW program grant 

competition? 

Proposed Requirements: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes the 

following requirements for this program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

1. Innovations that Improve Outcomes 

for High-Need Students: The Secretary 

may require that— 

(a) Grantees must implement projects 

designed to improve outcomes of highneed students (as defined in this notice) 

in postsecondary education; or, 

(b) Grantees must implement projects 

designed to improve one or more of the 

following outcomes of high-need 

students (as defined in this notice) in 

postsecondary education: 

(i) Persistence; 

(ii) Academic progress; 

(iii) Time to degree; or, 

(iv) Completion. 

2. Eligibility: The Secretary may make 

grants to, or enter into contracts with, 

one or more of the following: 

(a) A public or private non-profit 

institution of higher education, a public or 

private non-profit institution, or 

combinations of such institutions; or, 

(b) A public or private non-profit agency. 

The Secretary will announce the 

eligible applicants in the NIA. 

Note: Section 741 of the HEA provides 

that, under the FIPSE, the Secretary is 

authorized to make grants to, or enter into 

contracts with, institutions of higher 

education, combinations of such institutions, 

and other public and private nonprofit 

institutions and agencies. The requirement 

for eligibility simply restates these statutory 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9421 

provisions. In any grant competition under 

this program, the Department could choose to 

allow applications from one or more of the 

eligible entities, including public or private 

non-profit educational institutions that are 

not institutions of higher education as 

defined under the HEA and public agencies 

or third party non-profit organizations or 

entities. 

3. Types of FITW grants: Awards may 

be made for Development grants, 

Validation grants, and Scale-up grants. 

The Secretary will announce the type of 

grants that applicants may apply for in 

the NIA. 

4. Evidence and Sample Size 

Standards: To be eligible for an award— 

(a) An application for a Development 

grant must be supported by one of the 

following: 

(i) Evidence of promise (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c)); 

(ii) Strong theory (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)); or 

(iii) Evidence of promise or strong 

theory. 

The Secretary will announce in the 

notice inviting applications which 

evidence standard will apply to a 

Development grant in a given 

competition. Under (a)(iii), applicants 

must identify whether their application 

is supported by evidence of promise or 

strong theory. 

(b) An application for a Validation 

grant must be supported by moderate 

evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c)). 

(c) An application for a Scale-up grant 

must be supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)). 

(d) The Secretary may require that an 

application for a Development grant, 

Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must 

be supported by one or more of the 

following levels of sample size: 

(i) Large sample (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)); 

(ii) Multi-site sample (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)), such as at multiple 

institutions; or 

(iii) Scaled multi-site sample, such as 

across a system of institutions, across 

institutions in a State, a region, or 

nationally, or across institutions in a 

labor market sector. 

The Secretary will announce in the 

NIA which sample size standards will 

apply to each type of FITW grant 

(Development, Validation, or Scale-up) 

that is available. 

(e) Where evidence of promise, 

moderate evidence of effectiveness, or 

strong evidence of effectiveness is 

required to receive a grant, an 

applicant’s project must propose to 

implement the core aspects of the 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

from their supporting study as closely as 

possible. Where modifications to a cited 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

will be made to account for student or 

institutional characteristics, resource 

limitations, or other special factors or to 

address deficiencies identified by the 

cited study, the applicant must provide 

a justification or basis for the 

modifications. Modifications may not be 

proposed to the core aspects of any cited 

process, product, strategy, or practice. 

5. Evaluation: 

(a) The grantee must conduct an 

Independent Evaluation (as defined in 

this notice) of its project. The evaluation 

must estimate the impact of the FITWsupported practice (as implemented at 

the proposed level of scale) on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)). 

(b) The evaluation design for a 

Development grant, Validation grant, or 

Scale-up grant must meet one or either 

of the following standards: 

(i) What Works Clearing Standards 

without reservations (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)); or 

(ii) What Works Clearinghouse 

Standards with reservations (as defined 

in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). 

The Secretary will announce in the 

NIA the evaluation standard(s) that will 

apply to each type of FITW grant 

(Development, Validation, or Scale-up) 

that is available. 

(c) The grantee must make broadly 

available digitally and free of charge, 

through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed 

journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) 

mechanisms, the results of any 

evaluations it conducts of its funded 

activities. The grantee must also ensure 

that the data from its evaluation are 

made available to third-party 

researchers consistent with applicable 

privacy requirements. 

(d) The grantee and its independent 

evaluator must agree to cooperate on an 

ongoing basis with any technical 

assistance provided by the Department 

or its contractor, including any 

technical assistance provided to ensure 

that the evaluation design meets the 

required evaluation standards, and 

comply with the requirements of any 

evaluation of the program conducted by 

the Department. This includes 

providing to the Department, within 100 

days of a grant award, an updated 

comprehensive evaluation plan in a 

format and using such tools as the 

Department may require. Grantees must 

update this evaluation plan at least 

annually to reflect any changes to the 

evaluation and provide the updated 

evaluation plan to the Department. All 

of these updates must be consistent with 

the scope and objectives of the approved 

application. 

6. Funding Categories: An applicant 

will be considered for an award only for 

the type of FITW grant (Development, 

Validation, and Scale-up) for which it 

applies. An applicant may not submit 

an application for the same proposed 

project under more than one type of 

grant. 

7. Limit on Grant Awards: The 

Secretary may choose to deny the award 

of a grant to an applicant if the 

applicant already holds an active FITW 

grant from a previous FITW competition 

or, if awarded, would result in the 

applicant receiving more than one FITW 

grant in the same year. 

8. Management Plan: Within 100 days 

of a grant award, the grantee must 

provide an updated comprehensive 

management plan for the approved 

project in a format and using such tools 

as the Department may require. This 

management plan must include detailed 

information about implementation of 

the first year of the grant, including key 

milestones, staffing details, and other 

information that the Department may 

require. It must also include a complete 

list of performance metrics, including 

baseline measures and annual targets. 

The grantee must update this 

management plan at least annually to 

reflect implementation of subsequent 

years of the project and provide the 

updated management plan to the 

Department. 

Proposed Selection Criterion: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes the 

following selection criterion for 

evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply this criterion or 

any of the selection criteria from 34 CFR 

part 75 in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications, the application 

package, or both, we will announce the 

maximum points assigned to each 

selection criteria. 

1. Collaborations: The extent to which 

the proposed project is designed to 

engage individuals or entities with 

expertise, experience, and knowledge 

regarding the project’s activities, such as 

postsecondary institutions, non-profit 

organizations, experts, academics, and 

practitioners. 

Note: This proposed selection criterion— 

Collaborations—would assess the extent to 

which applicants collaborate with 

knowledgeable or experienced parties in 

designing and implementing their projects. It 

is intended to encourage such collaboration 

in order to increase the quality of an 

application and project. The purpose of the 

Collaborations selection criterion is distinct 

from the purpose of Proposed Priority 8— 

Implementing Partnerships Focused on 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Large-scale Impact, which focuses on 

increasing impact. The proposed selection 

criterion for Collaborations would not assess 

scope of impact. Rather, it would determine 

whether an applicant has engaged relevant 

third party experts in designing the project. 

Proposed Definitions: 

The Assistant Secretary proposes the 

following definitions for this program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

1. High-need student means a student 

at risk of education failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support such as adult learners, working 

students, part-time students, students 

from low-income backgrounds, students 

of color, first-generation students, and 

students who are English learners. 

2. Independent evaluation means an 

evaluation that is designed and carried 

out independent of and external to the 

grantee, but in coordination with, any 

employees of the grantee who develop 

a process, product, strategy, or practice 

and are implementing it. 

3. 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. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Selection Criterion, and Definitions: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criterion, and definitions 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, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions, 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 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 

on 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 proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criterion, and definitions only upon a 

reasoned determination that their 

benefits would justify their 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. 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9423 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of the interstate transport SIP provision in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

interference with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility in another state. We previously approved 

the Idaho SIP for purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS on July 14, 2014 (79 FR 40662). 

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: February 13, 2015. 

Ted Mitchell, 

Under Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03502 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0581; FRL–9923–37– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting air emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On June 28, 2010, the State 

of Idaho submitted a SIP revision to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these interstate transport 

requirements with respect to the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to find 

that Idaho has adequately addressed 

certain CAA interstate transport 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 25, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0581, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

150), 1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT—150. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013– 

0581. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 

Interstate Transport 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

C. Guidance 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 

Interstate Transport 

On September 21, 2006, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule revising the 

1997 24-hour primary and secondary 

NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to the EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The EPA 

refers to these specific submittals as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were 

due on September 21, 2009. CAA 

section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan 

submission’’ must meet. 

The interstate transport provisions in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require 

each state to submit a SIP that prohibits 

emissions that will have certain adverse 

air quality effects in other states. CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four 

distinct elements related to the impacts 

of air pollutants transported across state 

lines. In this action, the EPA is 

addressing the first two elements of this 

section, specified at CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),1 for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS