Race to the Top Fund, 16668-16670 [2010-7409]
Download as PDF
16668
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0005]
RIN 1810–AB10
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
ACTION: Interim final requirements;
request for comments.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Race to the Top Fund
We invite you to submit comments
regarding these interim final
requirements and to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these interim final requirements.
During and after the comment period
you may inspect all public comments
about these interim final requirements
by accessing Regulations.gov. You may
also inspect the comments, in person, in
room 3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC
time, Monday through Friday of each
week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background: The Secretary published
final requirements for the Race to the
Top Fund in the Federal Register on
November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59688). In
the same issue of the Federal Register,
the Secretary also published the Race to
the Top Fund NIA for Fiscal Year (FY)
2010 (74 FR 59836). The NIA provides
two application deadlines for the FY
2010 Race to the Top Fund competition:
Phase 1, due January 19, 2010, and
Phase 2, due June 1, 2010.
Through Race to the Top, the
Department seeks to spur reform of the
country’s education system. This
mission can be met by achieving two
key goals. First, we seek to ensure that
States that put forth the highest-quality
reform plans and demonstrate the
capacity to implement those plans have
sufficient funding to make their plans a
reality. Second, we seek to recognize a
number of States that can serve as
models of change through their Race to
the Top plans. Funding for Race to the
Top is not unlimited. For this reason,
the Department must balance these
competing goals to maximize the Race
to the Top investment while ensuring
SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of
Education (Secretary) amends the final
requirements for the Race to the Top
Fund to incorporate and make binding
for Phase 2 of the competition State
budget guidance.
DATES: These requirements are effective
April 2, 2010. We must receive your
comments by May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time, in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is
available on the site under ‘‘How To Use
This Site.’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments about these interim final
requirements, address them to James
Butler, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room
3E108, Washington, DC 20202.
• Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those
comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery)
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing in their entirety on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Butler, Telephone: 202–205–3775
or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible
VerDate Nov<24>2008
12:54 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that the highest-quality plans can be
implemented.
In an effort to achieve these goals, in
the NIA, the Department provided
direction and flexibility to States in
planning their budgets. Specifically, the
NIA contained nonbinding budget
ranges for each State. The NIA provided
that States could use these ranges as
rough blueprints to guide the
development of their budgets, but that
States could also prepare budgets that
were above or below the ranges
specified. States were encouraged to
develop budgets that were appropriate
to implement the plans they outlined in
their applications. In developing the
budget ranges, the Department grouped
the States into five categories by ranking
every State according to its share of the
national population of children ages 5
through 17 and identifying natural
breaks in the population numbers. The
Department then developed overlapping
budget ranges for each category based
on the student population data.
The Department received 41
applications in Phase 1. States’ budget
requests ranged from 90 percent to 297
percent of the suggested budget
maximums. There was significant
variability in the extent to which State
budget requests conformed to the
Department’s suggested budget ranges,
including significant variability among
the budget requests from similarly sized
States.
Following the peer review of Phase 1
applications, we analyzed the rank
order of States based upon their scores
and compared the rank order with the
extent to which the State conformed
with or exceeded the Department’s
suggested budget ranges. We found no
relationship between a State’s rank and
its budget request.
In light of this analysis, we conclude
that States can propose high-quality
Race to the Top plans within the
Department’s suggested budget ranges,
particularly given that, as part of their
reform plans, States are expected to
coordinate, reallocate, or repurpose
other Federal, State, and local sources of
funding to support their Race to the Top
goals. To ensure a robust competition in
Phase 2 and to stimulate comprehensive
education reform throughout the
country, we are establishing the
suggested budget ranges as mandatory
funding limits for Phase 2 of the
competition.
Race to the Top grantees will serve as
models of best reform practices across
their States and the country;
accordingly, we want to ensure that the
Secretary can fund, at an adequate level,
a sufficient number of high-quality
applications within this finite ARRA
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
funding. Requiring States to conform to
the Department’s budget ranges will
allow more grants to be awarded.
Accordingly, these interim final
requirements make the previously
suggested budget ranges binding on
State applicants applying in Phase 2 of
the competition.
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed
Effective Date: Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553), the Department is generally
required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking and provide the public with
an opportunity to comment on proposed
regulations prior to establishing a final
rule. However, we are waiving the
notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the APA. Section
553(b) of the APA provides that an
agency is not required to conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking when
the agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. Although these
requirements are subject to the APA’s
notice-and-comment requirements, the
Secretary has determined that it would
be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking.
As noted above, these interim final
requirements are needed to establish
mandatory budget ranges in the final
Race to the Top Fund requirements
published on November 18, 2009. The
Department believes that mandatory
budget ranges are necessary due, in part,
to the extent to which Phase 1
applications exceeded the
recommended budget ranges.
Additionally, as previously indicated,
Phase 2 Race to the Top applications are
due on June 1, 2010. We chose this date
to allow sufficient time for States to
prepare their applications and for the
Department to conduct Phase 2 of the
competition, so that grant awards can be
made by September 30, 2010, when all
ARRA funds must be obligated. Even on
an extremely expedited timeline, it
would be impracticable for the
Department to conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking and then
promulgate final requirements before
the June 1, 2010 deadline for Phase 2
applications. Publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking, reviewing the
public comments, and issuing final
regulations normally takes at least four
to six months. We are concerned that,
when added to the time the Department
will need to conduct Phase 2 of the
competition in addition to the time that
States will need to plan and draft
applications that conform to these
budget ranges, the Department might
not be able to award Race to the Top
VerDate Nov<24>2008
12:54 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
grants by the obligation deadline of
September 30, 2010. With billions of
public dollars at stake, it would be
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest for the Department to take this
risk of not obligating all funds by
September 30.
Accordingly, and in order to make
timely grant awards with ARRA funds,
the Secretary is issuing these interim
final requirements without first
publishing proposed requirements for
public comment. These interim final
requirements govern Phase 2 of the Race
to the Top competition.
Although the Department is adopting
these requirements on an interim final
basis, the Department requests public
comment on these requirements. After
consideration of public comments, the
Secretary will publish final
requirements. The final requirements
would govern any subsequent
competition conducted under the Race
to the Top program.
The APA also requires that a
substantive rule be published at least 30
days before its effective date, except as
otherwise provided for good cause
(5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). For the reasons
outlined in the preceding paragraphs,
the Secretary has determined that a
delayed effective date for these interim
final requirements would be
unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest, and that good cause exists to
waive the requirement for a delayed
effective date. As such, this rule is
effective on the date it is published.
Summary of the Interim Final
Requirements
Current final requirements: The
current final requirements do not
contain any requirements related to the
total amount a State may request in its
Race to the Top budget.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements add a section
entitled ‘‘Budget Requirements,’’
specifying that State Race to the Top
budgets must conform to the budget
ranges developed by the Department.
Reasons: In Phase 1 of the Race to the
Top competition, States’ budget requests
varied widely and almost every
applicant exceeded the budget ranges
suggested in the NIA. The Department
did not expect that States would
propose budgets that differed so
significantly from the suggested budget
ranges, which, as indicated previously,
were developed based on current State
population data. We believe that States
can propose successful Race to the Top
plans within these ranges because we
did not find a relationship between
States’ scoring ranks and the extent to
which States exceeded the Department’s
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16669
suggested budget ranges. By requiring
States to conform to specific budget
ranges, we will ensure that the Secretary
can fund, at an adequate level, multiple
high-quality applications.
Interim Final Requirements
34 CFR CHAPTER 2
For the reasons discussed previously,
the Secretary amends the final Race to
the Top Fund requirements published
in the Federal Register on November 18,
2009 (74 FR 59836) to include a new
section as follows:
Budget Requirements: For Phase 2 of
the Fiscal Year 2010 competition, and
for any subsequent competitions, the
State’s budget must conform to the
following budget ranges: 1
Category 1—$350–700 million:
California, Texas, New York, Florida.
Category 2—$200–400 million:
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia,
Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey.
Category 3—$150–250 million:
Virginia, Arizona, Indiana, Washington,
Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Maryland, Wisconsin.
Category 4—$60–175 million:
Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico,
Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Connecticut, Utah, Mississippi, Iowa,
Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada.
Category 5—$20–75 million: New
Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia,
New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode
Island, Montana, Delaware, South
Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont,
Wyoming, District of Columbia.
The State should develop a budget
that is appropriate for the plan it
outlines in its application; however we
will not consider a State’s application if
its request exceeds the maximum in its
budget range.
Executive Order 12866: Under
Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to the requirements of the
Executive order and subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as an action likely to result in a
rule that may (1) have an annual effect
■
1 The Department developed budget ranges for
each State by ranking every State according to its
share of the national population of children ages 5
through 17 based on data from ‘‘Estimates of the
Resident Population by Selected Age Groups for the
United States, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2008’’
released by the Population Division of the U.S.
Census Bureau. The Department identified the
natural breaks in the population data and then
developed overlapping budget ranges for each
category taking into consideration the total amount
of funds available for awards.
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
16670
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or Tribal
governments or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an
‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2)
create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or local
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order. The Secretary has determined
that this regulatory action is significant
under section 3(f) of the Executive
order.
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits of this regulatory action and
have determined that this rule will not
impose additional costs to State
applicants, grantees, or the Federal
government. The Department is
regulating only to incorporate
mandatory budget ranges into the final
Race to the Top requirements. It may
take a State applicant time to create or
revise its Race to the Top budget so that
it conforms to the required budget range
contained in this regulatory action if the
State had intended to request more than
the maximum in the range. We believe,
however, that the benefits of this action
outweigh any potential burden that it
may cause. Additionally, the
Department has determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification: The Secretary certifies that
these interim final requirements will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The Secretary makes this certification
because the only entities eligible to
apply for grants are States, and States
are not small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
The interim final requirements contain
information collection requirements that
are subject to review by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520). The Department had
received previously emergency approval
for the information collections in the
final Race to the Top Fund requirements
published on November 18, 2009, under
OMB Control Number 1810–0697. The
Department will submit to OMB a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
12:54 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
Paperwork Reduction Act Change
Worksheet for this collection that will
include the changes described in this
notice.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 79.
One of the objectives of the Executive
Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
This document provides notification
of our specific plans regarding budget
requirements for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You may view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF, you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: March 29, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010–7409 Filed 4–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918; FRL–8816–9]
RIN 2070–AB27
1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-;
Withdrawal of Significant New Use
Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a
significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
for the chemical substance identified as
1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (CAS No.
754–12–1), which was the subject of
premanufacture notice (PMN) P–07–
601. EPA published the SNUR using
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
direct final rulemaking procedures. EPA
received a notice of intent to submit
adverse comments on the rule.
Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing
the SNUR, as required under the
expedited SNUR rulemaking process.
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
EPA is publishing (under separate
notice and comment rulemaking
procedures) a proposed SNUR for this
substance.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
2, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:
TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
For technical information contact:
Karen Chu, Chemical Control Division
(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 564–8773; e-mail address:
chu.karen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Does this Action Apply to Me?
A list of potentially affected entities is
provided in the Federal Register of
February 1, 2010 (75 FR 4983) (FRL–
8438–4). If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
II. What Rule is Being Withdrawn?
In the Federal Register of February 1,
2010 (75 FR 4983), EPA issued several
direct final SNURs, including a SNUR
for the chemical substance that is the
subject of this withdrawal. These direct
final rules were issued pursuant to the
procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart
D. In accordance with 40 CFR
721.170(d)(4)(i), EPA is withdrawing the
rule issued for 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3tetrafluoro- (PMN P–07–601; CAS No.
754–12–1) at 40 CFR 721.10182 because
the Agency received a notice of intent
to submit adverse comments. Elsewhere
in today’s Federal Register, EPA is
proposing a SNUR for this chemical
substance via notice and comment
rulemaking.
For further information regarding
EPA’s expedited process for issuing
SNURs, interested parties are directed to
40 CFR part 721, subpart D, and the
Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR
31314). The record for the direct final
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16668-16670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7409]
[[Page 16668]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2010-OESE-0005]
RIN 1810-AB10
Race to the Top Fund
ACTION: Interim final requirements; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) amends the final
requirements for the Race to the Top Fund to incorporate and make
binding for Phase 2 of the competition State budget guidance.
DATES: These requirements are effective April 2, 2010. We must receive
your comments by May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies.
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these interim final requirements,
address them to James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler, Telephone: 202-205-3775
or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding these interim final
requirements and to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these interim final
requirements.
During and after the comment period you may inspect all public
comments about these interim final requirements by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments, in person, in room
3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background: The Secretary published final requirements for the Race
to the Top Fund in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR
59688). In the same issue of the Federal Register, the Secretary also
published the Race to the Top Fund NIA for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 (74 FR
59836). The NIA provides two application deadlines for the FY 2010 Race
to the Top Fund competition: Phase 1, due January 19, 2010, and Phase
2, due June 1, 2010.
Through Race to the Top, the Department seeks to spur reform of the
country's education system. This mission can be met by achieving two
key goals. First, we seek to ensure that States that put forth the
highest-quality reform plans and demonstrate the capacity to implement
those plans have sufficient funding to make their plans a reality.
Second, we seek to recognize a number of States that can serve as
models of change through their Race to the Top plans. Funding for Race
to the Top is not unlimited. For this reason, the Department must
balance these competing goals to maximize the Race to the Top
investment while ensuring that the highest-quality plans can be
implemented.
In an effort to achieve these goals, in the NIA, the Department
provided direction and flexibility to States in planning their budgets.
Specifically, the NIA contained nonbinding budget ranges for each
State. The NIA provided that States could use these ranges as rough
blueprints to guide the development of their budgets, but that States
could also prepare budgets that were above or below the ranges
specified. States were encouraged to develop budgets that were
appropriate to implement the plans they outlined in their applications.
In developing the budget ranges, the Department grouped the States into
five categories by ranking every State according to its share of the
national population of children ages 5 through 17 and identifying
natural breaks in the population numbers. The Department then developed
overlapping budget ranges for each category based on the student
population data.
The Department received 41 applications in Phase 1. States' budget
requests ranged from 90 percent to 297 percent of the suggested budget
maximums. There was significant variability in the extent to which
State budget requests conformed to the Department's suggested budget
ranges, including significant variability among the budget requests
from similarly sized States.
Following the peer review of Phase 1 applications, we analyzed the
rank order of States based upon their scores and compared the rank
order with the extent to which the State conformed with or exceeded the
Department's suggested budget ranges. We found no relationship between
a State's rank and its budget request.
In light of this analysis, we conclude that States can propose
high-quality Race to the Top plans within the Department's suggested
budget ranges, particularly given that, as part of their reform plans,
States are expected to coordinate, reallocate, or repurpose other
Federal, State, and local sources of funding to support their Race to
the Top goals. To ensure a robust competition in Phase 2 and to
stimulate comprehensive education reform throughout the country, we are
establishing the suggested budget ranges as mandatory funding limits
for Phase 2 of the competition.
Race to the Top grantees will serve as models of best reform
practices across their States and the country; accordingly, we want to
ensure that the Secretary can fund, at an adequate level, a sufficient
number of high-quality applications within this finite ARRA
[[Page 16669]]
funding. Requiring States to conform to the Department's budget ranges
will allow more grants to be awarded. Accordingly, these interim final
requirements make the previously suggested budget ranges binding on
State applicants applying in Phase 2 of the competition.
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date: Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department is
generally required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed
regulations prior to establishing a final rule. However, we are waiving
the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA. Section
553(b) of the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest. Although these requirements are
subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, the Secretary has
determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.
As noted above, these interim final requirements are needed to
establish mandatory budget ranges in the final Race to the Top Fund
requirements published on November 18, 2009. The Department believes
that mandatory budget ranges are necessary due, in part, to the extent
to which Phase 1 applications exceeded the recommended budget ranges.
Additionally, as previously indicated, Phase 2 Race to the Top
applications are due on June 1, 2010. We chose this date to allow
sufficient time for States to prepare their applications and for the
Department to conduct Phase 2 of the competition, so that grant awards
can be made by September 30, 2010, when all ARRA funds must be
obligated. Even on an extremely expedited timeline, it would be
impracticable for the Department to conduct notice-and-comment
rulemaking and then promulgate final requirements before the June 1,
2010 deadline for Phase 2 applications. Publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking, reviewing the public comments, and issuing final
regulations normally takes at least four to six months. We are
concerned that, when added to the time the Department will need to
conduct Phase 2 of the competition in addition to the time that States
will need to plan and draft applications that conform to these budget
ranges, the Department might not be able to award Race to the Top
grants by the obligation deadline of September 30, 2010. With billions
of public dollars at stake, it would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest for the Department to take this risk of not
obligating all funds by September 30.
Accordingly, and in order to make timely grant awards with ARRA
funds, the Secretary is issuing these interim final requirements
without first publishing proposed requirements for public comment.
These interim final requirements govern Phase 2 of the Race to the Top
competition.
Although the Department is adopting these requirements on an
interim final basis, the Department requests public comment on these
requirements. After consideration of public comments, the Secretary
will publish final requirements. The final requirements would govern
any subsequent competition conducted under the Race to the Top program.
The APA also requires that a substantive rule be published at least
30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for
good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). For the reasons outlined in the
preceding paragraphs, the Secretary has determined that a delayed
effective date for these interim final requirements would be
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and that good cause
exists to waive the requirement for a delayed effective date. As such,
this rule is effective on the date it is published.
Summary of the Interim Final Requirements
Current final requirements: The current final requirements do not
contain any requirements related to the total amount a State may
request in its Race to the Top budget.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements add a
section entitled ``Budget Requirements,'' specifying that State Race to
the Top budgets must conform to the budget ranges developed by the
Department.
Reasons: In Phase 1 of the Race to the Top competition, States'
budget requests varied widely and almost every applicant exceeded the
budget ranges suggested in the NIA. The Department did not expect that
States would propose budgets that differed so significantly from the
suggested budget ranges, which, as indicated previously, were developed
based on current State population data. We believe that States can
propose successful Race to the Top plans within these ranges because we
did not find a relationship between States' scoring ranks and the
extent to which States exceeded the Department's suggested budget
ranges. By requiring States to conform to specific budget ranges, we
will ensure that the Secretary can fund, at an adequate level, multiple
high-quality applications.
Interim Final Requirements
34 CFR CHAPTER 2
0
For the reasons discussed previously, the Secretary amends the final
Race to the Top Fund requirements published in the Federal Register on
November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59836) to include a new section as follows:
Budget Requirements: For Phase 2 of the Fiscal Year 2010
competition, and for any subsequent competitions, the State's budget
must conform to the following budget ranges: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department developed budget ranges for each State by
ranking every State according to its share of the national
population of children ages 5 through 17 based on data from
``Estimates of the Resident Population by Selected Age Groups for
the United States, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2008'' released
by the Population Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. The Department
identified the natural breaks in the population data and then
developed overlapping budget ranges for each category taking into
consideration the total amount of funds available for awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1--$350-700 million: California, Texas, New York, Florida.
Category 2--$200-400 million: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey.
Category 3--$150-250 million: Virginia, Arizona, Indiana,
Washington, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin.
Category 4--$60-175 million: Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Connecticut, Utah, Mississippi, Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada.
Category 5--$20-75 million: New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West
Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana,
Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming,
District of Columbia.
The State should develop a budget that is appropriate for the plan
it outlines in its application; however we will not consider a State's
application if its request exceeds the maximum in its budget range.
Executive Order 12866: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an
annual effect
[[Page 16670]]
on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities
in a material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant''
rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or local programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order. The
Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is significant
under section 3(f) of the Executive order.
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs
and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that this
rule will not impose additional costs to State applicants, grantees, or
the Federal government. The Department is regulating only to
incorporate mandatory budget ranges into the final Race to the Top
requirements. It may take a State applicant time to create or revise
its Race to the Top budget so that it conforms to the required budget
range contained in this regulatory action if the State had intended to
request more than the maximum in the range. We believe, however, that
the benefits of this action outweigh any potential burden that it may
cause. Additionally, the Department has determined that this regulatory
action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that these interim final requirements will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Secretary makes this certification because the only entities eligible
to apply for grants are States, and States are not small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The interim final requirements
contain information collection requirements that are subject to review
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The Department had received previously emergency approval for the
information collections in the final Race to the Top Fund requirements
published on November 18, 2009, under OMB Control Number 1810-0697. The
Department will submit to OMB a Paperwork Reduction Act Change
Worksheet for this collection that will include the changes described
in this notice.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 79. One of the objectives of
the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes
developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of
proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides notification of our specific plans regarding
budget requirements for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/.
Dated: March 29, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-7409 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P