To promote safe, responsible, and rights-affirming development and deployment of AI abroad, the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence directs:

“The Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, in collaboration with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of NSF, shall develop a Global AI Research Agenda to guide the objectives and implementation of AI-related research in contexts beyond United States borders. The Agenda shall:

(A) include principles, guidelines, priorities, and best practices aimed at ensuring the safe, responsible, beneficial, and sustainable global development and adoption of AI; and

(B) address AI's labor-market implications across international contexts, including by recommending risk mitigations.”

USAID and the State Department are seeking information to assist in carrying out this action.

The rapid development of AI technologies is taking place in a highly-connected global context, in which funding, data, talent, and computing resources flow across borders to create globally-sourced products with global audiences. Building a safe, secure, trustworthy global AI ecosystem will require robust international collaboration and thorough understanding of the global impacts of AI technologies.

As a result, the Global AI Research Agenda has three interrelated goals:

• First, to leverage robust research collaborations to promote the safe, responsible, beneficial, and sustainable development of AI technologies around the world. This will require understanding of the best practices for building international partnerships, and using these partnerships to promote responsible research practices.

• Second, to outline important areas of inquiry for the study of AI's human impacts in a global context. Given the rapid development of AI technology, we are still at an early stage of understanding how it may reshape our economies, societies, and selves. Because AI's reach is inherently global, this inquiry needs to take a global perspective, understanding how the human impacts of AI are modulated by language, culture, geography, and socioeconomic development.

• Finally, to address the global labor market implications of AI. While many leading AI companies are based in the United States and other wealthy countries of the Global North, necessary inputs such as data labeling and human-feedback training involve workers in much more diverse settings. Similarly, the availability of commercial APIs and open-source models make the outputs of AI accessible around the world, potentially leading to unpredictable changes in the quantity, profitability, and nature of work.

The Global AI Research Agenda drafting committee is currently working with the following high-level structure for the Agenda. We welcome public input on this high-level structure, in particular whether other topics need to be emphasized in order to address the three goals above.

In considering information for submission, respondents are encouraged to review resources that USAID, State Department, DOE, and NSF have developed or coordinated with partners to develop in the past:

USAID and State Department are interested in receiving information pertinent to any or all of the topics described below. Respondents may provide information on one or more of the topics in this RFI and may elect not to address every topic.

Please answer based on your experience, the positions of your organization, or research you have encountered or conducted. Where possible, please cite the source of your information or note when personal views are expressed.

Information that is specific and actionable is of special interest. Copyright protections of materials, if any, should be clearly noted. USAID and the State Department are especially interested in the perspectives of those living and/or working in emerging economies, though responses are welcome from anyone.

• Research best practices: What sorts of guidelines, practices, or institutional arrangements can help various research stakeholders (universities, corporate R&D centers, conferences, journals, etc.) ensure that AI research is safe, ethical, and sensitive to global contexts?

○ In particular, what criteria and frameworks are currently being used by AI conferences, publications, and funders?

• International engagement: What types of international research partnerships have been most effective in ensuring alignment on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI? What types have been challenging?

• Foundation models: How might research and engagement best practices differ between the developers of foundation models and “downstream” users of these models? What do users want and need from foundation model developers?

• Human impacts: What considerations are most important for safe and ethical research into the human impacts of AI systems ( e.g., mental health, labor displacement, bias and discrimination)? How do these considerations vary in different global contexts?

• Enabling infrastructure: What are the best strategies to ensure access to computing resources, data, and other prerequisites for AI research?

• Global equity considerations: How might these best practices or strategies look different for partnerships in developed economies and those involving emerging economies? How might best practices differ for different types of partnerships (academic, private sector, government, public-private etc.)?

Authority: Executive Order 14110 of Oct. 30, 2023.

In 2016, an Interim Final Rule titled “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirement for National Directory of New Hires Employment Verification and Annual Program Activity Reporting,” was published in the Federal Register . This rule codified section 4013 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, requiring State agencies to access employment data through the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) at the time of certification, including recertification, to determine eligibility status and correct benefit amount for SNAP applicants.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: SNAP Requirement for National Directory of New Hires Employment Verification.

Form Number: N/A.

OMB Control Number: 0584-0608.

Expiration Date: 07/31/2024.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations at 7 CFR 272.16 require that each State agency must compare identifiable information about each adult household member against data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). This comparison will be used to determine the eligibility status of the household and determine the correct benefit amount the household should receive. Following OMB approval of this collection, FNS intends to merge this collection with OMB control number 0584-0064.

Verification of Match; Notice of Match Results: The State agency must independently verify the information prior to taking any adverse action against an individual. Should the State agency receive employment information via the NDNH that was previously unreported by the household, the State agency must issue a notice of match results informing the household of the match and providing them with the opportunity to verify the information. The State agency may contact the employer directly, depending upon applicable reporting requirements as defined at 7 CFR 273.12.

Notice of Adverse action or Notice of Denial: The Notice of Adverse Action or Notice of Denial is issued by State agencies to participating households whose benefits will be reduced or terminated as the result of a change in household circumstances. Should the State agency independently verify unreported or underreported income discovered through NDNH, and that income results in a reduction of benefits or change in eligibility, the State agency must take action by issuing the household a Notice of Adverse Action or Notice of Denial and adjust or deny benefits accordingly.

Burden Estimates: The previous burden for this collection was 521,719.02 reporting hours (482,290.88 reporting burden hours for State agencies + 39,428.14 reporting burden hours for households). The requested burden is 3,365,064.98 (1,261,899.37 reporting burden hours for State agencies + 2,103,165.61 reporting burden hours for households), which represents an increase of 2,843,345.96 hours due to program adjustments. These program adjustments result from the availability of State usage data and an increase in the number of State agencies utilizing NDNH database. There are no recordkeeping or third party/disclosure requirements associated with this collection.

Reporting

Affected Public: State and local agencies, households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,187,665.15.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.99.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 50,375,224.29.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.0668.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,365,064.98.

Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captions will be provided for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialists, at atrevino@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota (DFO) at kfajota@usccr.gov.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Hawai'i Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at atrevino@usccr.gov.

Background

On September 7, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review and invited interested parties to comment. 1 On December 11, 2023, Commerce extended the deadline for issuance of these final results to March 5, 2024. 2 For a complete description of the events that occurred subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The products covered by the Order are fish fillets from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by interested parties in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 5 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the assessment rate calculated for the review period. 6 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted for a company, there must be at least one reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct CBP to liquidate at the assessment rate calculated for the review period. 7 There were no entries of subject merchandise for 12 of the companies, nor for the Vietnam-wide entity, subject to this review during the POR. 8 Accordingly, in the absence of suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we are hereby rescinding this administrative review for these companies and the Vietnam-wide entity, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

We continue to find that the non-individually-examined exporters Cafatex, HVC, IDI, and Loc Kim Chi, and individually-examined respondents Vinh Hoan and CASEAMEX, have demonstrated eligibility for separate rates. 9 As noted below, we have assigned Cafatex, HVC, IDI, and Loc Kim Chi the rate established for CASEAMEX, consistent with our practice in administrative reviews and section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 10

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, as well as our verification procedures, Commerce made certain changes to the margin calculations for Vinh Hoan and CASEAMEX. 11

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the final results of this administrative review are as follows:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for the final results of this review to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

For Vinh Hoan, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice, 14 for entries of Vinh Hoan's merchandise that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by Vinh Hoan during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Vietnam-wide entity rate.

Because CASEAMEX's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit assessment rates by dividing the amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer or customer by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. Where an importer-specific or customer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For Cafatex, HVC, IDI, and Loc Kim Chi, because we assigned these companies CASEAMEX's rate of $0.18 per kilogram in the final results of this review, we will instruct, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise at the rate of $0.18 per kilogram.

For the companies/entity listed in Appendix II for which we are rescinding this administrative review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period August 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for previously examined Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that maintain separate rates based on a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific cash deposit rate; (3) for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity ( i.e., $2.39 per kilogram); and (4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporter that supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On December 22, 2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. 1 In that notice, we inadvertently listed Yuhuan Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. under Appendix II (Non-Selected Companies Under Review) ( see company number 6) and Appendix III (Companies To Be Rescinded) ( see company numbers 62 and 64). The two companies should have only been listed under Appendix II. Further, we inadvertently listed Haining Chint Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd. in Appendix III (Companies To Be Rescinded) ( see company number 22). However, this company was preliminarily determined to be cross-owned with the mandatory respondent, Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., and should not have been listed in Appendix III. 2 Additionally, we note that Commerce “received a timely-filed withdrawal review request with respect to” Trina Solar Energy Development Company Limited, but inadvertently omitted the company from Appendix III (Companies To Be Rescinded). 3 Lastly, we received a timely-filed withdrawal request for Yancheng Trina Guoneng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. but the company was inadvertently omitted from Appendix III (Companies To Be Rescinded) and the “Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part” section. 4

In the Federal Register of December 22, 2023, in FR Doc 2023-28162, on pages 88577-88578, replace Appendix III (Companies to be Rescinded) with the attached revised Appendix III. Further, on pages 88575-88576, correct the sentence “Commerce also received a timely-filed withdrawal of review request with respect to: (1) Canadian Solar Manufacturing, Inc.; (2) New East Solar Energy Cambodia Co., Ltd.; (3) Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; (4) Trina Solar (Singapore) Science and Technology Pte. Ltd.; (5) Trina Solar Energy Development Company Limited; (6) Vina Cell Technology Company Limited; and (7) Vina Solar Technology Company Limited.” to read as follows:

“Commerce also received a timely-filed withdrawal of review request with respect to: (1) Canadian Solar Manufacturing, Inc.; (2) New East Solar Energy Cambodia Co., Ltd.; (3) Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; (4) Trina Solar (Singapore) Science and Technology Pte. Ltd.; (5) Trina Solar Energy Development Company Limited; (6) Vina Cell Technology Company Limited; (7) Vina Solar Technology Company Limited; and (8) Yancheng Trina Guoneng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd.”

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section(s) 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On July 12, 2023, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce initiated these circumvention inquiries concerning unthreaded pins of alloy steel exported from China, which are further processed in the United States, into steel threaded rod. 1 Commerce provided opportunities for interested parties to identify respondents in these inquiries  2 and also solicited information on the quantity and value of sales, exports, or shipments of unthreaded pins from publicly-identified Chinese exporters and U.S. importers/processors. 3 On October 13, 2023, Commerce selected importers Birmingham Fastener Inc./Houston Fastener Mfg. Inc. (Birmingham) and Dan Loc Group LLC (Dan Loc), and exporters Jiashan Steelfit Trading Co., Ltd. (Steelfit) and Ningbo Zhenghai Yongding Fastener Co., Ltd. (Yongding Fastener), 4 as mandatory respondents to our questionnaires. 5

We received responses to initial and supplemental questionnaires from Birmingham, Dan Loc, and Steelfit, as well as a response to our initial questionnaire from Yongding Fasterner. However, after initially participating in these inquiries, Yongding Fastener subsequently failed to respond to a request for additional necessary information from Commerce. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of these inquiries, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6

The merchandise covered by the scope of the AD Order   7 is alloy and certain carbon steel threaded rod from China. The merchandise covered by the scope of the CVD Order   8 is carbon and alloy steel threaded rod from China. For a full description of the scopes, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

These circumvention inquiries cover unthreaded pins of alloy steel exported from China which are further processed into alloy steel threaded rod in the United States. Unthreaded pins of alloy steel are unthreaded rod, bar, or studs, having a solid, circular cross section of any diameter, in any straight length, and are non-headed. Unthreaded pins may enter unchamfered or with their ends already chamfered. Such pins may also be referenced as “pitch diameter stud blanks” or “blanks.” Unthreaded pins of alloy steel are believed to enter under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 7318.15.5090, 7228.60.8000, 7318.15.2095, 7318.19.0000, and 7318.29.0000, several of which also cover alloy steel threaded rod.

Commerce made these preliminary findings of circumvention in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226. We relied on information placed on the record by the petitioners, 9 U.S. importers/processors, and Chinese suppliers. Further, because Chinese supplier Yongding Fastener failed to cooperate in these inquiries, i.e., by failing to respond to a request for information and failing to participate to the best of its ability, we have used adverse inferences when selecting from among the facts otherwise available on the record, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 10 Also, as adverse facts available, we are treating Yongding Fasteners and Ningding I&E, its affiliated trading company, as a single entity.

For a complete description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached at Appendix I to this notice.

Based on our analysis, as detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily find, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act, that imports of unthreaded pins of alloy steel from China that are further processed in the United States into subject merchandise are circumventing the Orders.

To administer this affirmative preliminary circumvention determination, Commerce is requiring that importers of unthreaded pins of alloy steel from China which will not be threaded into subject merchandise certify that such pins will not be further processed into subject alloy steel threaded rod. Importers will be required to submit a copy of the importer certification as part of the entry summary by uploading them into the document imaging system (or “DIS”) in ACE, and to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or Commerce with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, upon request of either agency. 11 Properly certified entries are not subject to AD/CVD duties under the Orders. Exemption from AD/CVD duties under the Orders is permitted only if the certification and documentation requirements specified in Appendices II and III are met.

Entries of unthreaded pins of alloy steel produced and/or exported by Yongding Fastener or Ningding I&E are not eligible for certification.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(2), we will direct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation of previously suspended entries and to suspend liquidation of all entries of unthreaded pins of alloy steel from China that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 12, 2023 ( i.e., the date of publication of the Initiation Notice ). 12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.226(l)(2), we will also instruct CBP to require AD and CVD cash deposits for unthreaded pins of alloy steel from China for each unliquidated entry of unthreaded pins of alloy steel from China that have been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 12, 2023.

For entries of unthreaded pins of alloy steel for which the exporter has a company-specific cash deposit rate under the AD Order, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific AD cash deposit rate established for that company in the most recently-completed segment of the proceeding. For all Chinese exporters of unthreaded pins of alloy steel that do not have a company-specific cash deposit rate under the AD Order, the AD cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 48.91 percent);  13 for all non-Chinese exporters of unthreaded pins of alloy steel which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter.

For entries of unthreaded pins of alloy steel for which the producer and/or exporter has a company-specific cash deposit rate under the CVD Order, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific CVD cash deposit rate established for that company in the most recently-completed segment of the proceeding. For all Chinese producers and/or exporters of unthreaded pins of alloy steel that do not have a company-specific cash deposit rate under CVD Order, the CVD cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate ( i.e., 41.17 percent). 14

These suspension of liquidation instructions and cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.226(f)(4), interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination of circumvention and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 14 days of the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date on which case briefs are due. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this these inquiries, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 15 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in these inquires. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 16

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the time and date for the hearing. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.

Consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, Commerce is notifying the ITC of this affirmative preliminary determination to include the merchandise subject to these inquiries within the Orders. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, the ITC may request consultations concerning Commerce's proposed inclusion of the inquiry merchandise. These consultations must be concluded within 15 days after the date of the request. If, after consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, it will have 60 days to provide written advice to Commerce.

This notice is published in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(1).

Notice was published in the Federal Register on the date listed below that a request for a permit had been submitted. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the activities, go to https://www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in table 1 below.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Authority: The requested permit has been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222 through 226), as applicable.

The Council is hosting a series of port meetings along the Atlantic coast throughout 2024 in order to take a focused look at the Atlantic king mackerel and Atlantic Spanish mackerel fisheries. The agenda for the four in-person public meetings is as follows: Council staff will briefly introduce port meetings and the Council's goals and objectives. Attendees will then have the opportunity, through a series of discussion-based breakout groups, to provide input on issues related to the Atlantic king mackerel and Spanish mackerel fisheries including changing environmental conditions, needed management changes, commercial and recreational fishery dynamics, and the goals and objectives of the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. Information provided during port meetings will be summarized and presented to the Council for use in management. Additional port meetings will be scheduled along the Atlantic coast throughout the remainder of 2024. Meeting materials and additional information will be posted on the Council's website at www.safmc.net as it becomes available.

Monday, April 1, 2024: North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Southern District Office, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405; phone: (910) 796-7215;

Tuesday, April 2, 2024: North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557; phone: (252) 515-5500;

Wednesday, April 3, 2024: Hatteras Village Civic Center, 6658 North Carolina Hwy 12, Hatteras, NC 27943; phone: (252) 986-2109; and

Thursday, April 4, 2024: Dare County Administrative Building Board of Commissioners Meeting Room, 954 Marshall C. Collins Dr., Manteo, NC 27954; phone: (252) 475-5700.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aid should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meeting.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

This request is for the revision and extension of a current information collection, which includes both vessel and dealer permits.

Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), NMFS is responsible for management of the Nation's marine fisheries. In addition, NMFS must comply with the United States' obligations under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ).] Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and consistent with ATCA. HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. NMFS issues permits to fishing vessels and dealers in order to collect information necessary to comply with domestic and international obligations, secure compliance with regulations, and disseminate necessary information. Regulations at § 635.4 require that vessels participating in commercial and recreational fisheries for Atlantic HMS and dealers purchasing Atlantic HMS from a vessel obtain a federal permit issued by NMFS.

This action addresses the renewal of permit applications currently approved under OMB control number 0648-0327, including both vessel and Atlantic Tunas Dealer permits. Vessel permits include Atlantic Tunas (except Longline permits, which are approved under OMB control number 0648-0205), HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial permits. This action also includes the one-time requirement for commercial vessels greater than 20 meters in length to obtain an International Maritime Organization/Lloyd's Registry (IMO/LR) number.

This action is also being revised to include a new requirement for all HMS vessel permit applications to be submitted online starting in 2025, and the one-time requirement for all permit applicants to set up an account on the HMS permits website. The latter was implemented to make the program compatible with current federal data security requirements and will make it easier for permit holders with multiple vessel permits to manage their permits by linking them all within a single account. Finally, the action is revised to remove the ability to submit an application for an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit, as the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category was discontinued as part of Amendment 13 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan after years of inactivity in the bluefin tuna fishery. More information on that action can be found in the Amendment 13 final rule (87 FR 59966, October 3, 2022).

The burden estimates in this renewal are also being updated to reflect increases in the total number of permits issued each year, and a $1 increase in the price of HMS vessel permits to $27 per permit, due to increased costs associated with maintaining and executing the program.

Method of submittal will be electronic (online) only via the NMFS Permit Shop.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0327.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (request for revision and extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 40,400.

Estimated Time per Response: Renewal of Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit application, 5 minutes; renewal applications for the following vessel permits—Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial, 10 minutes; initial Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit application, 15 minutes; initial applications for the following vessel permits—Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial, 35 minutes; one-time application for the IMO/LR number, 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,933.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,073,550.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ).

We are soliciting public comments to allow the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this Information Collection Request (ICR). Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An incidental take authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

On September 14, 2022, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to construction activities related to demolition and construction activities associated with the replacement of the Q8 bulkhead at Naval Station Norfolk. Following NMFS' review of the application, the Navy provided responses to our questions on December 15, 2023. A revised version of the application was submitted on January 5, 2024 and the application was deemed adequate and complete on February 23, 2024. The requested regulations would be valid for 5-years, from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029. The Navy plans to conduct necessary work, including vibratory pile driving and removal and impact pile driving to remove aging components of the bulkhead and replacing the tongue and groove sheet piles between Piers 11 and 14 and areas to the north of Pier 14. The proposed action may incidentally expose marine mammals occurring in the vicinity to elevated levels of underwater sound, potentially resulting in incidental take, by Level B harassment. Therefore, the Navy requests an authorization to incidentally take marine mammals.

The Navy is proposing to remove old components of the Q8 bulkhead at Naval Station Norfolk and replace those with new to maintain the use and lifespan of the bulkhead from Pier 11 to the northern jetty just past Pier 14. Work would be conducted over three phases. The entire project scope includes the removal of 378 existing piles from the old bulkhead and installation of 836 piles to construct the new bulkhead structure. The Navy expects construction will require approximately 212 in-water workdays over the 5-year period.

Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS will consider all information, suggestions, and comments related to the request during the development of proposed regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy, if appropriate.

Title of Collection: Regulation F: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, State Application for Exemption.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0056.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: State governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,730.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 858,345.

Abstract: Regulation F implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 and prescribes Federal rules governing the activities of debt collectors (as that term is defined in the FDCPA). Regulation F addresses communications in connection with debt collection and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in debt collection. Regulation F includes information collections related to information that debt collectors must provide to consumers at various points during the debt collection process (such as at the outset of collections), before reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency, and in response to certain consumer requests or actions. Regulation F also includes information collections related to recordkeeping and State applications to the CFPB for an exemption of a class of debt collection practices within the applying State from the provisions of the FDCPA and the corresponding provisions of Regulation F.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFPB, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the CFPB's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Purpose of Program: The purposes of the PPOHA Program are to: (1) expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students; and (2) expand the postbaccalaureate academic offerings, as well as enhance the program quality, at the institutions of higher education (IHEs) that are educating the majority of Hispanic college students and helping large numbers of Hispanic and low-income students complete postsecondary degrees.

Background: In the fall of 2021, there were approximately 2.8 million U.S. resident students enrolled at the postbaccalaureate level in degree-granting institutions. 1 Of those students, 60 percent were White and only 13 percent were Hispanic. 2 Furthermore, in 2021, White students received 62.4 percent and 63.4 percent of master's and doctoral degrees, respectively, and Hispanic students received 12.7 percent and 9.7 percent of master's and doctoral degrees, respectively. 3

Hispanic students who enroll and attain credentials beyond a bachelor's degree have increased employment options, which provides the potential for greater financial returns. 4 In 2021, for example, 49% advanced degree holders earned $100,000 or more, as compared to 7 percent of high school graduates and 35 percent of those whose highest attainment was a bachelor's degree. 5

A critical component of student success and college completion for Hispanic students is engagement with diverse faculty members who can serve as mentors. 6 The impact of the characteristics, insights, and perspectives of diverse faculty has been shown to enhance the teaching, research, and service missions of institutions of higher education. 7 Diverse faculty increase opportunities for students to encounter readings and research relevant to underrepresented groups. 8 Increasing Latino faculty has been found to play a critical role in Latino student retention and climate. 9 In addition, the presence of diverse faculty enhances the college experience by providing a more enriching college experience and a more supportive racial climate to ensure student success. 10 Despite the many benefits of faculty diversity, in the fall of 2021, only six percent of full-time faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions were Hispanic, 11 while the enrollment rate of Hispanic undergraduate and graduate students was 33 percent. 12

Hispanic adults are also currently underrepresented in the STEM workforce. Hispanic or Latino workers represented 15 percent of the total STEM workforce in 2021, 13 compared to 18 percent of the total labor workforce. 14 According to labor market data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, students who graduate with degrees in the STEM disciplines generally are paid more than students who graduate with non-STEM degrees. 15 The growth in STEM jobs is expected to outpace that of non-STEM jobs in the future. 16

To this end, this competition includes an absolute priority focused on expanding the number of Hispanic and other underrepresented graduate and professional students served by the applicant institution, or the institutions that are part of the cooperative agreement application, through expanded courses and institutional resources. In responding to this absolute priority, applicants should demonstrate how they will expand academic offerings that prepare postbaccalaureate students for the workforce by developing or enhancing current course offerings in existing postgraduate degree, certificate, or credentialing programs or by establishing new postgraduate degree, certificate, or credentialing programs. Additionally, applicants are encouraged to form partnerships with other Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and non-HSI IHEs that may assist the applicant IHE in leveraging resources and opportunities for apprenticeships, internships, workplace learning, or similar experiences for students.

This competition also includes two competitive preference priorities focused on meeting students' holistic needs and providing flexible, high-quality, and accessible learning opportunities, and three invitational priorities that support increasing the number of Hispanic doctoral candidates and graduates through collaboration, increasing the number of Hispanic educators, and increasing the number of Hispanics prepared for the STEM workforce.

Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority, two competitive preference priorities, and three invitational priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see section 503(b)(14) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1101b). The competitive preference priorities are from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

The priority is:

Expanding the number of Hispanic and other underrepresented graduate and professional students that can be served by the institution by expanding courses and institutional resources.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 15 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets each of these priorities. Applicants may respond to one or both priorities, for a total of up to 15 additional points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs (up to 10 points).

Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, through one or both of the following areas:

(a) Creating education or work-based settings that are supportive, positive, identity-safe and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status, through supporting students to engage in real-world hands-on learning that is aligned with classroom instruction and takes place in community-based settings, such as apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, work-based learning, and service learning, and in civic activities, that allow students to apply their knowledge and skills, strengthen their employability skills, and access career exploration opportunities. (up to 2 points)

(b) Creating a positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate at IHEs through one or both of the following activities:

(1) Implementing evidence-based practices for advancing student success for underserved students. (up to 4 points)

(2) Providing evidence-based professional development opportunities designed to build asset-based mindsets for faculty and staff on campus and that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status. (up to 4 points)

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability, Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success (up to 5 points).

Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access, affordability, completion, and success for underserved students by supporting the development and implementation of high-quality and accessible learning opportunities, including learning opportunities that are accelerated or hybrid online; credit-bearing; work-based; and flexible for working students.

Invitational Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets these invitational priorities a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. Applicants may respond to one, two, or all priorities.

These priorities are:

Invitational Priority 1: Improving the Hispanic Ph.D. Pipeline through Collaboration.

Projects that are supported by a consortium of HSIs, including no fewer than three HSIs that award Ph.D.s, and are designed to improve the Hispanic Ph.D. pipeline and increase the number of Hispanic Ph.D.s by supporting teaching, research, and resource sharing across institutions, creating mentorship opportunities, and supporting experiential learning, as well as other high-impact practices that have demonstrated positive results for Hispanic postbaccalaureate students.

Under this priority, we are particularly interested in projects designed to address the low percentage of Hispanics who both enroll in Ph.D. programs and attain the Ph.D. degree by establishing, improving, or expanding programs that—

(a) Increase the Hispanic student pipeline for Ph.D.s;

(b) Improve the academic preparation of postbaccalaureate students through course offerings, research opportunities (including study abroad opportunities), mentorship, and learning communities;

(c) Combine traditional academic training with industry-standard specialized knowledge and skills that will improve student educational outcomes; and

(d) Evaluate the association between the consortium's activities and Ph.D. attainment by Hispanic students.

Invitational Priority 2: Supporting the Hispanic Educator Pipeline.

Projects that are designed to establish or expand entry points into the educator pipeline, to increase the number of Hispanic educators, the number of Hispanic students earning postgraduate degrees in preparation for employment as an educator, or both.

Under this priority, we are particularly interested in projects designed to establish, improve, or expand programs that address one or more of the following—

(a) Recruit racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse educators;

(b) Retain diverse educators by strengthening support networks and providing professional development; and

(c) Combine traditional academic training with specialized knowledge and skills that will prepare students for entry into the educator profession.

Invitational Priority 3: Increasing Hispanics in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

Projects that are designed to increase the number of Hispanic postbaccalaureate students and educators in STEM.

Under this priority, we are particularly interested in projects designed to establish, improve, or expand programs that—

(a) Identify and implement instructional strategies, systems, and structures that improve postsecondary learning and retention that leads to completion of a master's, Ph.D. or terminal degree in STEM;

(b) Combine traditional academic training with specialized knowledge and skills through research, apprenticeships, and technology applications that will prepare students for STEM fields; and

(c) Provide pathways for entry into the STEM workforce.

Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, with the exception of “educator” and “underserved student,” which are from the Supplemental Priorities. They apply to the priorities and selection criteria in this notice:

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Educator means an individual who is an early learning educator, teacher, principal or other school leader, specialized instructional support personnel ( e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or faculty.

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by promising evidence or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation ( e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable ( e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case ( e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Note: In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's Education Logic Model Application at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/pacific/Resource/100677.

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias ( e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive ( i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcomes(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Underserved student means a student in postsecondary education in one or more of the following subgroups:

(a) A student who is living in poverty.

(b) A student of color.

(c) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(d) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Note: The What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as well as the more recent What Works Clearinghouse Handbook released in August 2022 (Version 5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1102-1102c.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 606. (e) The Supplemental Priorities. (f) Notice of final requirements for the PPOHA Program, published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2010 (75 FR 44056) (NFR).

Type of Award: Discretionary grants. Five-year Individual Development Grants and Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants will be awarded in FY 2024.

Note: A cooperative arrangement is an arrangement to carry out allowable grant activities between an institution eligible to receive a grant under this competition and another eligible or ineligible IHE, under which the resources of the cooperating institutions are combined and shared to better achieve the purpose of the program and avoid costly duplication of effort.

Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $28,845,000 for the PPOHA Program for FY 2024, of which we intend to use approximately $11,257,000 for new awards. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent fiscal years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Individual Development Grants:

Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000-$600,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $550,000 per year.

Maximum Awards: We will not make an award exceeding $600,000 for a single 12-month budget period.

Estimated Number of Awards: 11.

Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants:

Estimated Range of Awards: $600,000-$1,500,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,000,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,500,000 for a single 12-month budget period.

Estimated Number of Awards: 5.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: IHEs that (a) qualify as an eligible HSI and (b) offer a postbaccalaureate certificate or postbaccalaureate degree program are eligible to apply for new grants under the PPOHA Program. See section 512(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1102a(b)).

An eligible IHE for purposes of the PPOHA Program, under sections 502 and 512(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1101a and 1102a(b)), must—

(a) Have an enrollment of needy students, as defined in section 502(b) of the HEA (section 502(a)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(i));

(b) Have, except as provided in section 522(b) of the HEA, average educational and general expenditures that are low, per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, in comparison with the average educational and general expenditures per FTE undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar instruction (section 502(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(ii));

Note 1: To demonstrate an enrollment of needy students and low average educational and general expenditures per FTE undergraduate student, an IHE must be designated as an “eligible institution” in accordance with 34 CFR 606.3 through 606.5 and the notice inviting applications for designation as an eligible institution for the fiscal year for which the grant competition is being conducted.

Note 2: Only institutions that the Department determines are eligible, or are granted a waiver, may apply for a grant in this program.

(c) Be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered, or making reasonable progress toward accreditation, according to such an agency or association (section 502(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C.1101a(a)(2)(A)(iv));

(d) Be legally authorized to provide, and provide within the State, an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree (section 502(a)(2)(A)(iii)(I) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(iii)(I)); and

(e) Have an enrollment of undergraduate FTE students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application (section 502(a)(5)(B) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)(B)).

Note 3: Funds for the PPOHA Program will be awarded each fiscal year; thus, for this program, the “end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application” refers to the end of the fiscal year prior to the application due date. The end of the fiscal year occurs on September 30 for any given year.

Note 4: In considering applications for grants under this program, the Department will compare the data and documentation the institution relied on in its application with data reported to the Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the IHE's State-reported enrollment data, and the institutional annual report. If different percentages or data are reported in these various sources, the institution must, as part of the 25 percent assurance verification, explain the reason for the differences. If the IPEDS data show that less than 25 percent of the institution's undergraduate FTE students are Hispanic, the burden is on the institution to show that the IPEDS data are inaccurate. If the IPEDS data indicate that the institution has an undergraduate FTE less than 25 percent, and the institution fails to demonstrate that the IPEDS data are inaccurate, the institution will be considered ineligible.

(f) A grantee under the PPOHA Program, which is authorized by title V of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A or part B program during the period for which funds under this program are awarded (section 505 of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101d). The title III, part A programs include: the Strengthening Institutions Program; the American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program; the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Programs; the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Program; the Predominantly Black Institutions Program; and the Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program. Title III, part B includes the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program.

(g) An eligible IHE may not submit more than one Individual Development Grant application, be the lead applicant for more than one Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant, or submit an Individual Development Grant application and be the lead applicant for a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant application in this competition. A grantee with an Individual Development Grant or a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant may be a partner in one or more Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants. The lead institution in a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant must be an eligible institution.

(h) A PPOHA Program grantee may use not more than 20 percent of its total PPOHA Program grant award to provide financial support in the form of scholarships, fellowships, and other student financial assistance to low-income students (see NFR).

(i) Nothing in this notice alters a grantee's obligations to comply with Federal civil rights laws.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching unless the grantee uses a portion of its grant for establishing or improving an endowment fund. If a grantee uses a portion of its grant for endowment fund purposes, it must match or exceed those grant funds with non-Federal funds (section 503(c)(2) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101b(c)(2)).

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This competition involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements.

c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a restricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

d. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: local educational agencies; State educational agencies; IHEs; nonprofit organizations. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee.

4. Other: This program is subject to the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58). This means that, under this program, grantees and their subrecipients and contractors may not use their grant funds for infrastructure projects or activities ( e.g., construction and broadband infrastructure) unless—

(a) All iron and steel used in the infrastructure project or activity are produced in the United States;

(b) All manufactured products used in the infrastructure project or activity are produced in the United States; and

(c) All construction materials are manufactured in the United States.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the PPOHA Program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11, we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600 (Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information), please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

4. Funding Restrictions: We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR 606.10(c). We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 55 pages for an Individual Development grant and no more than 65 pages for a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit applies to the Project Narrative, which is your complete response to the selection criteria and, if applicable, the competitive preference priorities. However, the page limit does not apply to the Application for Federal Assistance form (SF-424); the ED SF-424 Supplement form; the Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs form (ED 524); the assurances and certifications; or the one-page project abstract, the program profile form, and supporting budget narrative.

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an application. To do so, please email the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT with the subject line “Intent to Apply,” and include the applicant's name and a contact person's name and email address. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210, 606.8, and 606.22. Applicants should address each of the following selection criteria separately for each proposed activity. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria and up to 15 additional points to an application under the competitive preference priorities, for a total score of up to 115 points. The maximum score for each criterion is noted in parentheses.

(a) Quality of the applicant's comprehensive development plan. (up to 25 points)

The Secretary evaluates each application for a development grant based on the extent to which—

(1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution (up to 5 points);

(2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis (up to 5 points);

(3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution (up to 5 points);

(4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources (up to 5 points); and

(5) The 5-year plan describes how the applicant will improve its services to Hispanic and other low-income students (up to 5 points).

Note: Under 34 CFR 606.8(a), a comprehensive development plan is an institution's strategy for achieving growth and self-sufficiency by strengthening its (1) academic programs; (2) institutional management; and (3) fiscal stability.

(b) Quality of the project design. (up to 15 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following:

(1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice) (up to 10 points); and

(2) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence (as defined in this notice) (up to 5 points).

Note: To establish that their projects “demonstrate a rationale,” applicants must use a logic model (as defined in this notice) and identify research or evaluation findings suggesting that a key project component is likely to improve relevant outcome. To establish that their projects are supported by “promising evidence,” applicants should cite the supporting study or studies that meet the conditions in the definition of “promising evidence” and attach the study or studies as part of the application attachments. In addressing “promising evidence,” applicants are encouraged to align the direct student services proposed in the application to evidence-based practices identified in the selected studies. Note that the research cited to address the “promising evidence” criterion can be the same research provided to demonstrate a rationale, but only applications that include logic models can receive full points under the “demonstrate a rationale” selection factor. In addition, applicants should also consider how the cited promising evidence studies can be incorporated into their evaluation plan to produce evidence of project effectiveness.

(c) Quality of activity objectives. (up to 10 points)

The extent to which the objectives for each activity are—

(1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results (up to 5 points); and

(2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan (up to 5 points).

(d) Quality of implementation strategy. (up to 20 points)

The extent to which—

(1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive (up to 10 points);

(2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects (up to 5 points); and

(3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained (up to 5 points).

(e) Quality of the project management plan. (up to 8 points)

The extent to which—

(1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation (up to 4 points); and

(2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer (up to 4 points).

(f) Quality of key personnel. (up to 4 points)

The extent to which—

(1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives (up to 2 points); and

(2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic (up to 2 points).

(g) Quality of evaluation plan. (up to 14 points)

The extent to which—

(1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan (up to 5 points);

(2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan (up to 5 points); and

(3) The methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in this notice) about the project's effectiveness (up to 4 points).

(h) Budget. (up to 4 points)

The extent to which the proposed costs are necessary and reasonable in relation to the project's objectives and scope.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

A panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria in this notice, as well as the competitive preference priorities. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from the peer review.

In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the Department applies the following tie-breaking factors.

To resolve ties in the reader scores of applications for development grants, the Department will award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has an endowment fund for which the current market value, per FTE enrolled student, is less than the comparable average current market value of the endowment funds, per FTE enrolled student, at comparable institutions that offer similar instruction. If a tie remains after applying the preceding tiebreaker, the Department will award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student that are less than the comparable average expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student at comparable institutions that offer similar instruction. (34 CFR 606.23(b)(1) and (2)). For the purpose of these funding considerations, we will use the most recent complete data available ( e.g., for FY 2024, we will use 2021-22 data).

If a tie remains after applying the preceding tiebreaker, priority will be given for Individual Development Grants to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE student. (See 34 CFR 606.23(b)(1)).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this program, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with:

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a GAN; or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements, please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case, the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the PPOHA Program:

(a) The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking graduate and professional students enrolled at HSIs currently receiving an award under this program.

(b) The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of master's, doctoral, and first-professional degrees and postbaccalaureate certificates awarded at HSIs currently receiving an award under this program.

(c) The Federal cost per master's, doctoral, and first-professional degree and postbaccalaureate certificate awarded at HSIs currently receiving an award under this program.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. 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 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.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: MSAP, authorized under title IV, part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), provides grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and consortia of LEAs to create or revise magnet schools under required or voluntary desegregation plans.

Under section 4401(b) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231, the purpose of MSAP is to assist LEAs in the desegregation of schools by providing financial assistance to eligible LEAs for: (1) the elimination, reduction, or prevention of minority group isolation (MGI) in elementary schools and secondary schools with substantial proportions of minority students, which shall include assisting in the efforts of the United States to achieve voluntary desegregation in public schools; (2) the development, implementation, and expansion of magnet school programs that will assist LEAs in achieving systemic reforms and providing all students the opportunity to meet challenging State academic standards; (3) the development, design, and expansion of innovative educational methods and practices that promote diversity and increase choices in public elementary schools and public secondary schools and public educational programs; (4) courses of instruction within magnet schools that will substantially strengthen the knowledge of academic subjects and the attainment of tangible and marketable career, technological, and professional skills of students attending such schools; (5) improving the capacity of LEAs, including through professional development, to continue operating magnet schools at a high performance level after Federal funding for the magnet schools is terminated; and (6) ensuring that all students enrolled in the magnet school programs have equitable access to high-quality education that will enable the students to succeed academically and continue with postsecondary education or employment.

Background: As indicated by Congress in MSAP's authorizing legislation (section 4401(a) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231(a)), magnet schools have been a significant part of the Nation's effort over the past 40 years to achieve voluntary school desegregation. “The use of magnet schools has increased dramatically since the inception of MSAP under the ESEA, with approximately 2,500,000 students nationwide attending such schools, of whom more than 69 percent are non-white,” they state. “Magnet schools offer a wide range of distinctive programs that have served as models for school improvement.” Research suggests that increasing student's access to more diverse student bodies provides a range of benefits to all students, including improved leadership skills, social mobility, civic engagement, academic success, empathy, and understanding. 1 Unfortunately, now, nearly 70 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, much of the progress toward school desegregation and equity has stalled or even reversed in many communities. 2 For example, demographic isolation has been exacerbated by policy choices related to school assignment, zoning, and transportation options that create inequitable access to high-quality schools. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) documented this situation in a 2022 report showing that the “student population has significantly diversified, but many schools remain divided along racial, ethnic, and economic lines.”  3 This finding builds on a 2016 report from the GAO which documented the increase in percentages of schools with high concentrations of students from families with low incomes and high concentrations of students of particular racial backgrounds. 4

Since the 1980s, MSAP has supported LEAs with funding to create magnet schools, defined under section 4402 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231a, as public elementary or secondary schools or education centers that offer “a special curriculum capable of attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds,” as part of their efforts to voluntarily desegregate their schools or meet the intended outcomes of desegregation plans required by a final order of any court of the United States, a court of any State, or any other State agency or official of competent jurisdiction (herein referred to as “required plans” or “required desegregation plans”). Proposed MSAP projects should be designed to foster high-quality educational programs in newly developed or revitalized magnet schools, as a means of attracting a diverse group of students and families in order to reduce or eliminate the isolation of a particular minority group (or prevent such isolation from occurring), as well as to provide equitable access for all students to courses of instruction that substantially strengthen knowledge of academic subjects and the attainment of tangible skills. In accordance with section 4405 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231d, 34 CFR 280.2 and 280.20, as described in section III, paragraph 4 of this notice, applicants must demonstrate how Federal funding of the proposed magnet schools will assist in achieving objectives related to the reduction, prevention, or elimination of MGI either in the proposed magnets or in the specific schools from which those students are coming (the magnets' feeder schools) to address the goals identified in the LEA's required or voluntary desegregation plan. (See section III, paragraph 4 for further information regarding desegregation plans). In addition, to address another goal of the MSAP program, we encourage applicants to strongly consider how the development, implementation, and expansion of magnet school programs will assist the LEA in achieving systemic reforms to provide students with the opportunity, resources and supports to meet challenging State academic standards. Finally, should LEAs wish to test new transportation options in order to widen student access to magnet programming, we note that under section 4407(a)(9) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231f, MSAP permits applicants to support student transportation to and from magnet schools, provided the costs are sustainable beyond the grant period and do not constitute a significant portion of an LEA's grant funds.

To lead effective magnet schools and implement a MSAP project, LEAs work across several different work strands over the grant period. The Magnet School Development Framework ( https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/03/Toolkits_MSAP-DevelopmentFramework.pdf ) is one tool to help guide project development. The framework speaks to five core school-specific areas to which to attend: diversity, inclusion, and equity; enrollment and recruitment; curriculum and instruction; family engagement; and partnership development. It also identifies six key elements for school and community leaders in cultivating effective schools: leadership and management; communication; data use; theme integration; professional development; and planning for sustainability. MSAP funding provides a key lever for LEAs to collaborate across schools and districts, as well as with key stakeholders, including educators, families and students, and external governmental, nonprofit, business, and other community partners to improve and expand efforts in each of these areas.

To streamline and, for new applicants, enhance the accessibility of the MSAP application process, for the FY 2024 competition there are two absolute priorities under which applicants may apply: Absolute Priority 1, Applications from New Potential Grantees; and Absolute Priority 2, Applications from Grantees That Are Not New Potential Grantees. LEAs that, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, are currently operating an active MSAP grant would apply under Absolute Priority 2. The selection criteria, which are used to evaluate applications and derived from MSAP's authorizing statute and 34 CFR 280.31 and 75.210, remain similar for applications submitted under both Absolute Priority 1 and Absolute Priority 2. However, applicants under Absolute Priority 2 have an opportunity in their applications to demonstrate how the proposed project outlined in this application would allow the LEA(s) to extend and build on work currently underway using MSAP funds, particularly in their responses to the competitive preference priorities.

As with previous MSAP competitions, the FY 2024 MSAP competition includes several competitive preference and invitational priorities. Competitive Preference Priorities 1-4 were established by Congress in the reauthorization of MSAP under ESEA as specific tools for promoting educational equity and commitments to excellence within magnet schools. These competitive preference priorities address an LEA's need for MSAP funding, the evidence base undergirding the LEA's program design for new or significantly revitalized magnet schools, the means of student selection for admission including use of lotteries and other non-academic means, and attention to socioeconomic factors in promoting diversity. Applicants under both absolute priorities are encouraged to address Competitive Preference Priorities 1-4 while considering the development of strong and sustainable magnet schools and programs in their projects.

This competition also includes two additional competitive preference priorities which are targeted to only those applicants under Absolute Priority 2: Applications from Grantees That Are Not New Potential Grantees. These are: Competitive Preference Priority 5, Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources and Opportunities and Competitive Preference Priority 6, Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to Strengthen Student Learning. Competitive Preference Priorities 5 and 6, rooted in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, 5 are designed to encourage MSAP grantees to address broader systemic, policy, and collaborative leadership challenges in the environments in which the magnet schools function to further promote their success.

Under Competitive Preference Priority 5, applicants must review sources of inequity, and as part of their MSAP project, plan to develop or implement specific strategies to address the root causes of these inequities, which include collaboration with other LEAs, other governmental or community agencies, or across district leadership to effect policy change to address barriers to student's access to equitable opportunities. Applicants should consider establishing inter-district magnet programs, consistent with a 2019 Urban Institute report finding that two-thirds of total school segregation in metropolitan areas is due to segregation between, rather than within, school districts. 6 The Department is also interested in projects from LEAs that propose to coordinate with other relevant government entities—such as housing and transportation authorities and through similar programs such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Rental Assistance Demonstration program—given the impact that other public policy choices may have on the composition of a school's student body. Finally, applicants could describe plans related to selection of magnet school sites or revising school boundaries, attendance zones, or feeder patterns to take into account neighboring communities; and formal merging or coordination among multiple educational jurisdictions in order to pool and more equitably allocate resources, provide transportation, expand curricula and program options, and expand high-quality public school options for students from low-income backgrounds. High-quality responses to Competitive Preference Priority 5 will identify how the specific strategies outlined are integrated components of their overall MSAP project.

In addition, to increase the overall diversity of the school settings in which students learn and to best support a diverse set of learners within proposed magnet schools, under Competitive Preference Priority 6, applicants are asked to demonstrate connections between their proposed MSAP projects and broader school or district efforts to increase students' access to a diverse group of educators who are well-prepared and supported to provide them with high-quality instruction. High-quality responses to Competitive Preference Priority 6 will specify how the applicant intends to leverage the LEA's broader human resource efforts as an integrated component in meeting the goals and objectives of the MSAP project.

This competition also includes one invitational priority for projects that propose to establish whole school magnet programs in order to promote equitable access to learning opportunities for students in ways that allow all students within a school to successfully engage in the special curriculum or program. Whole school magnets, in which all students in the school participate in the magnet programming, tend to more effectively offer diverse and equitable opportunities, where magnet programs within schools can have the effect of creating separate tracks and programs for different student populations within the school. 7 While magnet programs within schools are permissible for MSAP, consideration should be given as to how these will not inadvertently lead to further minority group isolation across tracks as well as to how the funded programming may benefit students across the whole school.

Finally, for several years the Department has worked to promote the effective use of evidence and evaluation in program development. MSAP promotes the use of evidence in identifying practices to improve LEAs' capacity to continue effectively operating magnet schools beyond the funding period. This competition provides opportunities for applicants to address the use of evidence in several ways. First, under Selection Criterion (a)—Desegregation, outlined in section V, paragraph 1(a) of this notice, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate the conceptual framework underlying the project, for example, in the form of a logic model or similar graphic organizer, to demonstrate how, strategically, their proposed project activities would allow them to meet the purposes of MSAP. As described above, this competition also includes a competitive preference priority promoting the use of evidence to undergird proposed programming in new and significantly revitalized magnet schools. Finally, this competition includes a selection criterion related to the quality of the applicant's evaluation plan (see section V, paragraph 1(c)). The first two factors of this selection criterion address the applicant's plan for monitoring the implementation of their project activities, both in response to program-wide performance measures (see section IV, paragraph 5 of this notice) and the applicant's specific project objectives. The third factor applies to the applicant's plans to meet the requirement in section VI, paragraph 4(c) that grantees conduct an impact analysis of a specific project component or components in a study designed to yield results at the level of promising evidence. For those applicants applying under Absolute Priority 1, a high-quality response to section V, paragraph 1(e)(3) will outline the plans to identify the appropriate focus for this promising evidence evaluation plan and steps the applicant would take to initiate such an evaluation plan. For applicants applying under Absolute Priority 2, a high-quality response will describe the specific project components to be evaluated through the evaluation plan and the steps the applicant would take to create, at a minimum, a well-designed and implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias designed to produce promising evidence. The Department is committed to supporting the use of evidence in developing an LEA's capacity for the effective implementation of magnet schools in their community, as well as to building the body of evidence supporting effective approaches to these efforts. However, we also recognize that identifying entities with appropriate expertise to help craft and implement such an impact analysis could take time and should not serve as a barrier for new potential grantees.

Priorities: This competition includes two absolute priorities, six competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 are from the Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640) (Administrative Priorities). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 3 are from the MSAP regulations at 34 CFR 280.32. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), Competitive Preference Priorities 2 and 4 are from section 4406 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231e. Competitive Preference Priorities 5 and 6 are from the Final Priorities and Definitions—Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2. Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 constitute separate funding categories and will be considered for funding under two separate ranked orders. The Secretary intends to award grants under the separately ranked orders under each of these absolute priorities provided that the applications submitted under each are of sufficient quality.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1: Applications from New Potential Grantees.

(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the applicant does not, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, have an active grant, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds.

(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.

Absolute Priority 2: Applications from Grantees that are not New Potential Grantees.

(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the applicant has, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, an active grant, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds.

(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to 2 additional points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1, up to 3 additional points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 2, up to 3 additional points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 3, up to 5 additional points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 4, up to 8 additional points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 5, and up to 4 additional points to an application depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 6. Applicants that apply under Absolute Priority 1 may choose to address one or more of Competitive Preference Priorities 1-4 for up to a total of 13 additional points, depending on how well the application meets one or more of the priorities. Applicants that apply under Absolute Priority 2 may choose to address one or more of Competitive Preference Priorities 1-6 for up to a total of 25 additional points, depending on how well the application meets one or more of the priorities.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Need for Assistance (up to 2 points).

The Secretary evaluates the applicant's need for assistance by considering—

(1) The costs of fully implementing the magnet schools project as proposed;

(2) The resources available to the applicant to carry out the project if funds under the program were not provided;

(3) The extent to which the costs of the project exceed the applicant's resources; and

(4) The difficulty of effectively carrying out the approved plan and the project for which assistance is sought, including consideration of how the design of the magnet school project— e.g., the type of program proposed, the location of the magnet school within the LEA—impacts the applicant's ability to successfully carry out the approved plan.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—New or Revised Magnet Schools Projects and Strength of Evidence to Support Proposed Projects (up to 3 points).

The Secretary determines the extent to which the applicant proposes to (1) carry out a new, evidence-based magnet school program; (2) significantly revise an existing magnet school program, using evidence-based methods and practices, as available; or (3) replicate an existing magnet school program that has a demonstrated record of success in increasing student academic achievement and reducing isolation of minority groups.

Competitive Preference Priority 3—Selection of Students (up to 3 points).

The Secretary determines the extent to which the applicant proposes to select students to attend magnet schools by methods such as lottery, rather than through academic examination.

Competitive Preference Priority 4—Socioeconomic Diversity (up to 5 points).

The Secretary determines the extent to which the applicant proposes to increase racial integration by taking into account socioeconomic diversity in designing and implementing magnet school programs.

Competitive Preference Priority 5—Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources and Opportunities (up to 8 points).

Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that it proposes a project designed to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students—

(a) In one or more of the following educational settings:

(1) Early learning programs.

(2) Elementary school.

(3) Middle school.

(4) High school.

(5) Career and technical education programs.

(6) Out-of-school-time settings.

(7) Alternative schools and programs;

(b) That examines the sources of inequity and inadequacy and implements responses, and that includes increasing student racial or socioeconomic diversity, through developing or implementing evidence-based policies or strategies that may include one or more of the following:

(1) Inter-district coordination.

(2) Cross-agency collaboration, such as with housing or transportation authorities.

(3) School assignment or admissions policies that are designed to promote socioeconomic diversity and provide equitable access to educational opportunities for students from low-income backgrounds or students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty.

Competitive Preference Priority 6—Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to Strengthen Student Learning (up to 4 points).

Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a focus on underserved students, through building or expanding high-poverty school (as may be defined in the program statute or regulations) districts' capacity to hire, support, and retain an effective and diverse educator workforce, through one or more of the following:

(a) Providing beginning educators with evidence-based mentoring or induction programs.

(b) Adopting or expanding comprehensive, strategic career and compensation systems that provide competitive compensation and include opportunities for educators to serve as mentors and instructional coaches, or to take on additional leadership roles and responsibilities for which educators are compensated.

(c) Developing data systems, timelines, and action plans for promoting inclusive and bias-free human resources practices that promote and support development of educator diversity.

(d) Providing opportunities for educators to be involved in the design and implementation of local and district wide initiatives that advance systemic changes.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. All applicants may address the invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

This priority is:

Whole School Magnet Programs.

Projects that propose to implement “whole school magnet” schools in which all students enrolled in the school participate in the magnet school program, rather than schools that implement magnet programs within schools that are offered to less than the entire school population.

Definitions: The definition of “evidence-based” is from 20 U.S.C. 7801. The definitions of “desegregation,” “feeder school,” “magnet school,” and “minority group” are from 34 CFR 280.4. The definitions of “demonstrates a rationale,” “experimental study,” “logic model,” “project component,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” “relevant outcome,” and “What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks” are from 34 CFR 77.1(c). The definitions of “children or students with disabilities,” “disconnected youth,” “educator,” “English learner,” “military- or veteran-connected student,” and “underserved student” are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Children or students with disabilities means children with disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3)) and 34 CFR 300.8, or students with disabilities, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(37), 705(202)(B)).

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Desegregation, in reference to a plan, means a plan for the reassignment of children or faculty to remedy the illegal separation of minority group children or faculty in the schools of an LEA or a plan for the reduction, elimination, or prevention of minority group isolation in one or more of the schools of an LEA.

Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages 14 and 24, who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational institution.

Educator means an individual who is an early learning (as defined in the Supplemental Priorities) educator, teacher, principal or other school leader, specialized instructional support personnel ( e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or faculty.

English learner means an individual who is an English learner as defined in section 8101(20) of the ESEA, or an individual who is an English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Evidence-based means an activity, strategy, or intervention that—

(i) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

(A) Strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;

(B) Moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or

(C) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well- implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or

(ii)(A) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

(B) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation ( e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable ( e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case ( e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Feeder school means a school from which students are drawn to attend a magnet school.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Magnet school means a public elementary school, public secondary school, public elementary education center, or public secondary education center that offers a special curriculum capable of attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds.

Military- or veteran-connected student means a child participating in an early learning (as defined in the Supplemental Priorities) program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101), in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).

Minority group means the following:

(1) American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

(2) Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

(3) Black (Not of Hispanic Origin). A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

(4) Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias ( e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive ( i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Underserved student means a student (which includes students in K-12 programs) in one or more of the following student groups:

(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

(b) A student of color.

(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

(d) An English learner.

(e) A child or student with a disability.

(f) A disconnected youth.

(g) A technologically unconnected youth.

(h) A migrant student.

(i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

(j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.

(k) A student who is in foster care.

(l) A student without documentation of immigration status.

(m) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.

(o) A student performing significantly below grade level.

(p) A military- or veteran- connected student.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbooks means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Note: The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as well as the more recent WWC Handbooks released in August 2022 (Version 5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7231-7231j.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 280. (e) Administrative Priorities. (f) Supplemental Priorities.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds:

The Administration has requested $149,000,000 for the MSAP program for FY 2024, of which we intend to use an estimated $84,000,000 for awards under this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2025 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $1,500,000-$3,500,000 per budget year.

Maximum Award: Under section 4408(c) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231h(3), awards to an LEA or a consortium of LEAs must not exceed $15,000,000 for the project period. Under section 4408(b) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231h(2), grantees may not expend more than 50 percent of year one grant funds and not more than 15 percent of years two and three grant funds on planning activities. Professional development is not considered to be a planning activity.

Note: Yearly award amounts may vary.

Estimated Number of Awards: 9-11.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: LEAs or consortia of LEAs implementing a desegregation plan as specified in section III, paragraph 4 of this notice.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

4. Other—Desegregation Plans: Under section 4404 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231c, and 34 CFR 280.20(e) and (f), to establish eligibility to receive MSAP assistance, applicants must submit with their applications one of the following types of desegregation plans: (i) a desegregation plan required by a final court order; (ii) a desegregation plan required by a State agency or an official of competent jurisdiction; (iii) a desegregation plan required by the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI); or (iv) a voluntary desegregation plan adopted by the applicant and submitted to the Department for approval as part of the application. Under the MSAP regulations, applicants are required to provide all of the information outlined in 34 CFR 280.20(a) through (g) in order to satisfy the eligibility requirements in 34 CFR 280.2(a)(2) and (b).

Required information for submission under each type of desegregation plan is as follows:

Required Desegregation Plans

1. Desegregation plans required by a final court order. An applicant submitting a desegregation plan required by a final court order must submit complete and signed copies of all court documents demonstrating that the magnet schools are a part of the approved desegregation plan. Examples of the types of documents that would meet this requirement include a Federal or State court order that establishes specific magnet schools, amends a previous order or orders by establishing additional or different specific magnet schools, requires or approves the establishment of one or more unspecified magnet schools, or authorizes the inclusion of magnet schools at the discretion of the applicant.

2. Desegregation plans required by a State agency or official of competent jurisdiction. An applicant submitting a desegregation plan ordered by a State agency or official of competent jurisdiction must provide documentation that shows that the desegregation plan was ordered based upon a determination that State law was violated. In the absence of this documentation, the applicant should consider its desegregation plan to be a voluntary plan and submit the data and information necessary for voluntary desegregation plans.

3. Desegregation plans required by OCR under Title VI. An applicant that submits a desegregation plan required by OCR under Title VI must submit a complete copy of the desegregation plan demonstrating that magnet schools are part of the approved plan or that the plan otherwise permits the inclusion of magnet schools.

4. Modifications to required desegregation plans. A previously approved desegregation plan that does not include the magnet school or program for which the applicant is now seeking assistance must be modified to include the development of magnet schools as outlined in the proposed project. The modification to the desegregation plan must be approved by the court, agency, or official that originally approved the plan. An applicant that wishes to modify a previously approved OCR Title VI desegregation plan to include different or additional magnet schools must submit the proposed modification for review and approval to the OCR regional office that approved its original plan. Proof of approval for plan modifications should be emailed to Gillian Cohen-Boyer at msap.team@ed.gov or mailed to: U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B212, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 365-7944.

Voluntary Desegregation Plans

Applicants proposing MSAP projects under voluntary desegregation plans must submit with their application a copy of the plan documenting the applicant's or consortia's intention to use magnet schools as a strategy to reduce, eliminate or prevent MGI, either in the proposed magnet schools or in the schools to which the magnet school students would otherwise attend had the magnet schools not been available, the “feeder” schools, as well as documentation of school board approval (or documentation of other official adoption of the plan by a governing authority for the LEA (or consortium of LEAs) as required under 34 CFR 280.20(f)(2)).

Under 34 CFR 280.2(b), the Secretary approves a voluntary desegregation plan only if it is determined that for each magnet school for which funding is sought, the magnet school will reduce, eliminate, or prevent MGI within the period of the grant award, either in the magnet school or in a feeder school, as appropriate. A voluntary desegregation plan must be approved by the Department each time an application is considered for funding.

Please note that while applicants with voluntary desegregation plans must provide evidence of school board approval as a part of the required application materials for consideration in this competition, these plans do not require Department approval prior to application submission. Under section 4404 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231c, and 34 CFR 280.2(b), as part of the eligibility review, the Department will review applicants' voluntary desegregation plans and determine on a case-by-case basis, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 7231(b)(1), whether, for each magnet school for which funding is sought, the magnet school will reduce, eliminate, or prevent MGI within the project period, either in the magnet school or in a feeder school, as appropriate. The Department's case-by-case review will include an examination of the factual basis for any proposed increases in enrollment of students from minority groups at district schools. For example, the Department will consider whether a plan to reduce, eliminate, or prevent MGI at a magnet school or at a feeder school would significantly increase MGI at any other magnet or feeder school in the LEA at the grade levels served by the magnet school. LEAs that were previously subject to a required desegregation plan but have achieved unitary status are considered voluntary desegregation plan applicants and should provide the documentation discussed in this section.

To assist the Department in conducting this review and applicants in submitting succinct and comprehensive information, the application package for this competition includes a Desegregation Plan Form OMB-1855-0011 for applicants to summarize the specific goals and objectives of their desegregation plan and explain how MSAP funding will assist in achieving their objectives related to the reduction, prevention, or elimination of MGI either in the proposed magnet schools or feeder schools. Applicants are encouraged to review the Desegregation Plan Form for the full set of instructions. In addition to confirming applicants' eligibility for an award, this form is used to inform the review of applicants' project narratives against the selection criteria in section V, paragraph 1 of this notice.

5. Single-Sex Programs: An applicant proposing to operate a single-sex magnet school or a coeducational magnet school that offers single-sex classes or extracurricular activities will undergo a review of its proposed single-sex educational program to determine compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), and other cases) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq. ) and its regulations—including 34 CFR 106.34. This review may require the applicant to provide additional fact-specific information about the single-sex program.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the MSAP, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11, we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary, and thus protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information, please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

4. Funding Restrictions: Unallowable costs are specified in section 4407 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231f. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to 125 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances, certifications, desegregation plan and related information; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, or letters of support. The recommended page limit applies only to the application narrative. Please note that the Guidance for Applicants available on the MSAP website competition page specifically identifies how language for competitive priorities and selection criteria can be cross-referenced to reduce redundancies and streamline responses.

6. Notice of Intent To Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify the Department of their intent to submit an application. To do so, please submit your intent to apply, preferably by April 15, 2024 by emailing msap.team@ed.gov with the subject line, “[LEA Name(s)] Intent to Apply.” Applicants that do not notify the Department of their intent to apply may still apply for funding.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria are from 34 CFR 75.210, 280.31, and sections 4401 and 4405 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231 and 7231d.

The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is included in parentheses following the title of the specific selection criterion. Each criterion also includes the factors that reviewers will consider in determining the extent to which an applicant meets the criterion.

(a) Desegregation (up to 25 points).

The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the desegregation-related activities, including:

(1) The effectiveness of the applicant's proposed desegregation strategies for the elimination, reduction, or prevention of MGI in elementary schools and secondary schools with substantial proportions of minority students. (section 4401(b)(1) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231) (up to 10 points)

(2) The effectiveness of its plan to recruit students from different social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds into the magnet schools. (34 CFR 280.31(a)(2)(v)) (up to 5 points)

(3) How it will foster interaction among students of different social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds in classroom activities, extracurricular activities, or other activities in the magnet schools (or, if appropriate, in the schools in which the magnet school programs operate). (34 CFR 280.31(c)(2)(i)) (up to 5 points)

(4) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework. (34 CFR 75.210(c)(2)(iii)) (up to 5 points)

(b) Quality of the project design (up to 30 points).

The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the project design. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The manner and extent to which the magnet school program will increase student academic achievement in the instructional area or areas offered by the school, including any evidence, or if such evidence is not available, a rationale based on current research findings, to support such description. (section 4405(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231d(b)(1)(B)) (up to 6 points)

(2) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (34 CFR 75.210(d)(3)(v)) (up to 6 points)

(3) The extent to which each magnet school for which funding is sought will encourage greater parental decision making and involvement. (34 CFR 280.31(c)(2)(iv)) (up to 6 points)

(4) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services. (34 CFR 75.210(d)(3)(ix)) (up to 6 points)

(5) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or organization at the end of Federal funding. (34 CFR 75.210(f)(2)(vii)) (up to 6 points)

(c) Quality of the management plan (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (34 CFR 75.210(g)(2)(i)) (up to 5 points)

(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits. (34 CFR 75.210(f)(2)(v)) (up to 5 points)

(d) Quality of personnel (up to 20 points).

(1) The Secretary determines the extent to which—

(i) The project director (if one is used) is qualified to manage the project; (34 CFR 280.31(b)(2)(i))

(ii) Other key personnel are qualified to manage the project; (34 CFR 280.31(b)(2)(ii)) and

(iii) Teachers who will provide instruction in participating magnet schools are qualified to implement the special curriculum of the magnet schools. (34 CFR 280.31(b)(2)(iii)) (up to 15 points)

(2) To determine personnel qualifications, the Secretary considers experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project, including the key personnel's knowledge of and experience in curriculum development and desegregation strategies. (34 CFR 280.31(b)(3)) (up to 5 points)

(e) Quality of the project evaluation (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

For applications under Absolute Priority 1:

(1) How the applicant will assess, monitor, and evaluate the impact of the activities funded under this part on student achievement and integration. (section 4405(b)(1)(D) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231d (b)(1)(D)) (up to 5 points)

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(iv)) (up to 5 points)

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies. (34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(iii)) (up to 5 points).

For applications under Absolute Priority 2:

(1) How the applicant will assess, monitor, and evaluate the impact of the activities funded under this part on student achievement and integration. (section 4405(b)(1)(D) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7231d (b)(1)(D)) (up to 5 points)

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(iv)) (up to 5 points)

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) about the project's effectiveness. (34 CFR 75.210) (up to 5 points)

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000) under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with:

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN) (or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN). We may notify you informally as well.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we will notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements, please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if the applicant has an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of the project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award recipient, grantees must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) If awarded a grant, applicants must also submit a final report with the results of a study designed to yield results at the level of promising evidence or higher, undertaken during the grant to assist the LEA in building capacity to continue operating magnet schools at a high performance level after Federal funding ends. The plans for this study, which may be narrowly tailored to a specific project component(s), are specifically what is being assessed under selection criterion factor (e)(3).

5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the following six performance measures have been established for the MSAP:

(a) The number and percentage of magnet schools receiving assistance whose student enrollment eliminates, reduces, or prevents MGI.

(b) The percentage increase of students for all students, disaggregated for each racial and ethnic group, in magnet schools receiving assistance who score proficient or above on State assessments in reading/language arts as compared to the previous year.

(c) The percentage increase of students for all students across each racial and ethnic group in magnet schools receiving assistance who score proficient or above on State assessments in mathematics as compared to the previous year.

(d) The percentage of MSAP-funded magnet schools still operating magnet school programs 3 years after Federal funding ends.

(e) The percentage increase of students for all students across each racial and ethnic group in MSAP-funded magnet schools still operating magnet school programs who score proficient or above on State assessments in reading/language arts 3 years after Federal funding ends as compared to the final project year.

(f) The percentage increase of students for all students across each racial and ethnic group in MSAP-funded magnet schools still operating magnet school programs who score proficient or above on State assessments in mathematics 3 years after Federal funding ends as compared to the final project year.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things, whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. 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 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.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038. On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such permits was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office by Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2023.

On September 14, 2023, CTDC filed an application (Application or App.) with the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential Permit to construct a bi-directional 320-kV, high voltage direct current (HVDC) subsea transmission line (Project Hostos) to connect the westernmost part of Puerto Rico to the easternmost part of the Dominican Republic. 1

CTDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Atabey Capital, LLC and is headquartered in Dorado, Puerto Rico. App. at 4. CTDC's proposed Project Hostos would include a subsea transmission cable system consisting of “two crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) HVDC cable runs, each rated at a voltage on +/−320 kV” that will be “separately laid, spanning approximately 91 miles (147 kilometers), depending on which route alternative is selected .” Id. at 6. The prospective project landfall (transition from nearshore to onshore) is proposed at the municipality of Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. Id. at 9. From the landfall location, the onshore cable route in Puerto Rico would consist of two segments. Id. at 6. The “from landfall to converter station” segment would consist of “two XLPE HVDC cable runs, each rated at a voltage of +/−320 kV,” and the “from converter station to point of interconnection” segment would consist of “two parallel three-phase XLPE HVDC cable runs, each rated at 230 kV[.]” Id. at 7. CTDC's Project Hostos does not incorporate any overhead transmission lines in Puerto Rico. Id. at 6.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the Application at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding should file a motion to intervene at Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214).

Comments and other filings concerning CTDC's Application should be clearly marked with Docket No. PP-502. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Tirso Selman, Project Director, Caribbean Transmission Development Co., LLC, info@caribbeantransmission.com.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE will consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action ( i.e., granting the Presidential permit, with any conditions and limitations, or denying the permit), which will be analyzed, disclosed, and available for public review, pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021); determine the Applicant's proposed project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions; and weigh any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. DOE also must obtain the favorable recommendation of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

CTDC's Application may be reviewed or downloaded electronically at www.energy.gov/gdo/pending-applications-0 or by emailing Electricity.Exports@hq.doe.gov.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 8, 2024, by Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .