Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards; Proposed Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.282P, 24690-24694 [2012-10005]
Download as PDF
24690
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests; Federal Student
Aid; Pell Grant, ACG, and National
SMART Reporting Under the Common
Origination and Disbursement (COD)
System
The Federal Pell Grant, ACG,
and National SMART Programs are
student financial assistance programs
authorized under the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended. These
programs provide grant assistance to an
eligible student attending an institution
of higher education. The institution
determines the student’s award and
disburses program funds to the student
on behalf of the Department (ED). To
account for the funds disbursed,
institutions report student payment
information to ED electronically. COD is
a simplified process for requesting,
reporting, and reconciling Pell Grant,
ACG, and National SMART funds.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before June 25,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Written comments
regarding burden and/or the collection
activity requirements should be
electronically mailed to
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or mailed to U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC
20202–4537. Copies of the proposed
information collection request may be
accessed from https://edicsweb.ed.gov,
by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending
Collections’’ link and by clicking on
link number 04843. When you access
the information collection, click on
‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view.
Written requests for information should
be addressed to U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537.
Requests may also be electronically
mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed
to 202–401–0920. Please specify the
complete title of the information
collection and OMB Control Number
when making your request.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUMMARY:
Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that Federal agencies provide interested
parties an early opportunity to comment
on information collection requests. The
Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Privacy, Information
and Records Management Services,
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:14 Apr 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
Office of Management, publishes this
notice containing proposed information
collection requests at the beginning of
the Departmental review of the
information collection. The Department
of Education is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: Pell Grant, ACG,
and National SMART Reporting under
the Common Origination and
Disbursement (COD) System.
OMB Control Number: 1845–0039.
Type of Review: Extension.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 6,019,900.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 507,362.
Abstract: The Federal Pell Grant,
ACG, and National SMART Programs
are student financial assistance
programs authorized under the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as
amended. These programs provide grant
assistance to an eligible student
attending an institution of higher
education. The institution determines
the student’s award and disburses
program funds to the student on behalf
of the Department (ED). To account for
the funds disbursed, institutions report
student payment information to ED
electronically. COD is a simplified
process for requesting, reporting, and
reconciling Pell Grant, ACG, and
National SMART funds.
Dated: April 19, 2012.
Darrin A. King,
Director, Information Collection Clearance
Division, Privacy, Information and Records
Management Services, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. 2012–9993 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Exemplary Charter School
Collaboration Awards; Proposed
Definitions, Requirements, and
Selection Criteria; Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number
84.282P
Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement proposes definitions,
requirements, and selection criteria for
the Exemplary Charter School
Collaboration Awards (Collaboration
Awards) and may use these definitions,
requirements, and selection criteria for
a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2012
and later years. The Assistant Deputy
Secretary is taking this action to create
incentives for charter schools (as
defined in section 5210(1) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) to (a)
collaborate with non-chartered public
schools (as defined in this notice) and
non-chartered local educational
agencies (LEAs) to share and transfer
best educational and operational
practices at the elementary and
secondary school levels; and (b)
disseminate information about these
collaborations across the Nation.
The Collaboration Awards
competition would be designed to
encourage charter schools and nonchartered public schools or nonchartered LEAs to share resources and
responsibilities, build trust and
teamwork, boost academic excellence in
charter schools and non-chartered
public schools alike, and provide
students and their parents with a range
of effective educational options.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before May 25, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this notice to Erin Pfeltz, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 4W255,
Washington, DC 20202–5970; or to
Nancy Paulu, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 4W246, Washington, DC 20202–
5970.
If you prefer to send your comments
by email, use the following addresses:
erin.pfeltz@ed.gov or
nancy.paulu@ed.gov. You must include
the phrase ‘‘Exemplary Charter School
Collaboration Awards—Comments on
Proposed Definitions, Requirements,
and Selection Criteria’’ in the subject
line of your electronic message.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices
Erin
Pfeltz at (202) 205–3525 or by email at
erin.pfeltz@ed.gov or Nancy Paulu at
(202) 205–5392 or by email at
nancy.paulu@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final definitions, requirements,
and selection criteria, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed
definition, requirement, or selection
criterion that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from these proposed
definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria. Please let us know of ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of
the Department’s programs and
activities.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice in room 4W255, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Washington, DC time, Monday through
Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record:
On request, we will provide an
appropriate accommodation or auxiliary
aid to an individual with a disability
who needs assistance to review the
comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice.
If you want to schedule an appointment
for this type of accommodation or
auxiliary aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Purpose of Program:
The purpose of the Charter Schools
Program (CSP) is to increase national
understanding of the charter school
model by—(1) Providing financial assistance for
the planning, program design, and
initial implementation of charter
schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter
schools, including the effects on
students, student academic
achievement, staff, and parents;
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:14 Apr 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools available to
students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide
support to charter schools for facilities
financing in an amount more nearly
commensurate to the amount the States
have typically provided for traditional
public schools.
Background:
Over the past 20 years, the charter
school movement has grown in size and
significance. The first charter school
opened in Minnesota in 1992; today
more than 5,000 charter schools are
spread across the Nation. As charter
schools have increased in number and
popularity, so too has the tension
between charter schools and traditional
public schools and LEAs, as they
compete for students. We believe that
encouraging and facilitating
collaboration between charter schools
and non-chartered public schools and
non-chartered LEAs can help change
this dynamic.
By encouraging charter schools, other
public schools, and LEAs to work
together as partners, the Department,
through the Collaboration Awards
competition, aims to increase national
understanding of the charter school
model. By creating partnerships and
carrying out dissemination activities,
non-chartered public schools and nonchartered LEAs would get first-hand
experience with the charter school
model—freedom from some of the strict
rules, regulations, and statutes that
inhibit the flexible operation of
traditional public schools and LEAs in
exchange for increased accountability
for producing certain results, as set forth
in each school’s charter. The
Collaboration Awards competition
would further support recent Federal
initiatives that encourage Federal
agencies to provide awards as incentives
to stimulate innovation and promote
agencies’ core missions.
Authorized Activities:
The Collaboration Awards
competition would be conducted as a
part of the CSP’s national activities.
Under section 5205(a) of the ESEA, the
Secretary reserves CSP funds to carry
out a number of national activities,
which may include, among other things,
(a) providing information, training, and
assistance to charter schools; (b)
disseminating best or promising
practices in charter schools to other
public schools; (c) conducting
evaluations or studies of the impact of
charter schools on student achievement;
and (d) providing other types of support
and technical assistance to charter
schools and other applicants for
assistance under the CSP. The required
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24691
activities that we are proposing for
Collaboration Awards are within the
scope of these authorized activities.
Collaboration Award grantees would
collaborate, and disseminate
information about the collaborations, in
a broad range of areas within the scope
of activities authorized under section
5205(a) of the ESEA. Awards would be
based on the quality of existing or past
collaboration activities as well as
proposals in the grant applications for
future collaboration activities, which
could involve continuing, modifying, or
expanding the existing or past model or
models of collaboration. In making
awards, the Secretary also would
consider the quality of proposals to
disseminate information or best
practices regarding the collaboration
activities upon which the award is
based.
Program Authority:
The CSP is authorized under 20
U.S.C. 7221–7221i. CSP national
activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C.
7221d.
Proposed Definitions
In addition to the definitions in
section 5210 of the ESEA, which
include the definition of charter school,
we are proposing the following
definitions for the Collaboration Awards
competition. We may apply one or more
of these definitions in any year in which
we make awards under a Collaboration
Awards competition.
Collaboration refers to the activities of
a partnership in which two or more
organizations or entities work together
to accomplish a common goal, which
may involve sharing or transferring best
practices or strategies.
Non-chartered local educational
agency (LEA) refers to an LEA that does
not qualify as a charter school as
defined in section 5210(1) of the ESEA
or under State law.
Non-chartered public school refers to
a public school that does not qualify as
a charter school under section 5210(1)
of the ESEA or under State law.
Significant compliance issue means a
violation that did, will, or could lead to
the revocation of a school’s charter.
Student achievement means—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1)
A student’s score on the State’s
assessments under the ESEA; and, as
appropriate (2) other measures of
student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this
definition, provided they are rigorous
and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
Alternative measures of student learning
and performance, such as student scores
on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
24692
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices
student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and
other measures of student achievement
that are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
Proposed Competition Requirements
Background
The Department proposes to use the
Collaboration Awards competition to
encourage collaboration between charter
schools and non-chartered public
schools and non-chartered LEAs, as well
as to disseminate information and share
or transfer best practices to improve
educational and operational practices in
public schools, including public charter
schools. The Assistant Deputy Secretary
for Innovation and Improvement
proposes the following requirements to
support these goals. The Department
may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which this
competition is in effect.
Proposed Eligibility Requirements
1. Eligible applicants are charter
schools (as defined in section 5210(1) of
the ESEA). In order to be eligible to
receive an award under a Collaboration
Awards competition, a charter school
must apply in partnership with at least
one non-chartered public school (as
defined in this notice) or non-chartered
LEA (as defined in this notice) and have
the support of the partner(s) to
participate in the competition. Multiple
charter schools may be included in the
partnership so long as they apply in
partnership with each other and with at
least one non-chartered public school
(as defined in this notice) or nonchartered LEA (as defined in this
notice).
2. The partnership must comply with
the requirements for group applications
set forth in 34 CFR 75.127–129.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Note: Only an eligible party under the
competition may apply for a grant or be the
fiscal agent for a grant. Thus a non-chartered
public school or a non-chartered LEA would
not be eligible to be the lead applicant or
fiscal agent for an exemplary charter school
collaboration award.
3. An applicant may submit more
than one application if each application
proposes to carry out substantially
different authorized activities.
4. Applicants may not have any
significant compliance issues (as
defined in this notice), including in the
areas of student safety, financial
management, and statutory or regulatory
compliance.
Proposed Application Requirements
An applicant for a Collaboration
Award must—
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:14 Apr 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
(1) Provide a detailed narrative
describing (a) the applicant’s past or
existing collaboration model or models
(which may involve more than one area
of collaboration or partner); (b) the
applicant’s proposal to continue,
modify, or expand the collaboration
model or models (which may include
adding new areas of collaboration or
partners); and (c) the applicant’s plan to
disseminate information about the
collaboration model or models (which
may include information about best
practices) to other public schools,
including chartered schools, nonchartered schools, and non-chartered
LEAs. The proposed collaboration
model or models may focus on a wide
range of areas within the scope of
activities authorized under section
5205(a) of the ESEA, which includes,
but is not limited to, curriculum and
instruction, data management and
sharing, organization and management,
personnel, facilities, finances, Federal
programs, standards, assessments,
special education services, English
learners, students with other special
needs, student transportation, and
professional development and training.
Note: In a particular year, the Secretary
may restrict applications to one or more areas
of focus or authorized activity under section
5205(a) of the ESEA.
(2) Provide written assurance from
authorized officials of the entities
involved in the partnership that all
participants—
• Agree to submit an application for
an award under the competition and
have read, understand, and agree with
the application for the competition; and
• Agree to have the executive
summary or narrative of the application,
with proprietary information redacted,
published on the U.S. Department of
Education’s Web site (ed.gov),
data.ed.gov, the National Charter School
Resource Center Web site
(charterschoolcenter.org), or any other
Web site or publication deemed
appropriate by the Secretary;
(3) Submit a partnership agreement
that meets the requirements of 34 CFR
75.128(b).
(4) Provide a clear description of the
goals and desired outcomes of the
proposed collaboration and current or
proposed measures that would be used
to gauge success in meeting those goals
and desired outcomes.
(5) Describe any past, existing, or
anticipated obstacles to implementing
the collaboration model or models or to
disseminating information about the
collaboration model or models, and the
strategies that were or will be used to
overcome those obstacles.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(6) Specify how the award money will
be used to implement the collaboration
model or models and to disseminate
information about the collaboration
model or models in accordance with
section 5205(a) of the ESEA.
(7) Specify how the award money will
be shared between the partners named
in the application. If grant activities will
be carried out by both the applicant (the
charter school) and its partner(s), the
applicant must describe in the
application and in the partnership
agreement how the award money will be
allocated between the partners,
including the applicant.
Proposed Award Amounts and Funding
Restrictions
(1) The Department will announce in
a notice inviting applications published
in the Federal Register the estimated
amount of funds available for a given
Collaboration Awards competition and
the number of awards that we expect to
make.
(2) A Collaboration Award grantee
must use the award funds to carry out
one or more of the following activities:
(a) Continuing the collaboration model
or models for which it received the
award, as described in its grant
application; (b) modifying the
collaboration model or models for
which it received the award, as
described in the application; (c)
expanding the collaboration model or
models for which it received the award
by adding additional areas of
collaboration, as described in the
application; or (d) expanding the
collaboration model or models for
which it received the award by adding
additional partners (schools or LEAs), as
described in the application.
Collaboration Award grantees also must
use award funds to disseminate
information about the collaboration
activities to other public schools,
including chartered schools, nonchartered schools, and non-chartered
LEAs. All activities carried out under
the Collaboration Awards must fall
within the scope of authorized activities
set forth in section 5205(a) of the ESEA.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The selection criteria we propose are
designed to— (1) support collaborations
between charter schools and nonchartered public schools and nonchartered LEAs that are most effective in
raising student outcomes and creating
efficiencies; (2) further the CSP’s
mission of increasing national
understanding of the charter school
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices
model; and (3) expand the number of
high-quality charter schools.
Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following
selection criteria for Collaboration
Awards competitions and further
proposes that we may apply one or more
of these criteria alone or in combination
with one or more selection criteria (1)
based on the CSP authorizing statute or
(2) in 34 CFR 75.210, in any year in
which this program is in effect. In the
notice inviting applications or the
application package, or both, we will
announce the maximum possible points
assigned to each criterion.
The Secretary could make awards to
the top-rated applications proposing to
carry out activities in specific areas of
focus (e.g., curriculum and instruction,
data management and sharing,
organization and management) within
the scope of authorized activities under
section 5205(a) of the ESEA. In a
particular year, the Secretary may
restrict applications to one or more
areas of focus. Additionally, in making
awards, the Secretary could fund
applications out of rank order in order
to ensure that the Collaboration Awards
are distributed throughout each area of
the Nation or a State.
(1) Record of and potential for
success. (A) The extent to which the
applicant’s past or existing collaboration
model or models have improved
educational outcomes and operational
practices, and (B) the extent to which
the applicant’s proposed collaboration
model or models and dissemination
plan will achieve one or more of the
following demonstrable results:
(i) Improved operational practices and
productivity among all partners;
(ii) Improved student achievement (as
defined in this notice);
(iii) Improved high school graduation
rates;
(iv) Improved rates of college
matriculation and college graduation; or
(v) Improved rates of attendance and
graduation from other postsecondary
(i.e., non-college) institutions or
programs.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Note: In the notice inviting applications or
the application package, or both, we may
assign points individually to the factors
listed under this selection criterion.
Note: The Secretary invites comment on
this criterion particularly with respect to
measures that might be used to determine the
extent to which an applicant’s proposed
collaboration model or models and
dissemination plan will achieve improved
operational practices and productivity among
all partners.
(2) Quality of the project design. The
extent to which the applicant proposes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:14 Apr 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
a high-quality plan to use its award
money to improve educational
outcomes and operational practices in
public schools, including charter
schools.
(3) Potential for scalability. The extent
to which the applicant’s proposed
collaboration model or models can be
replicated or adapted beyond the
participating partners by other public
schools or non-chartered LEAs and
sustained long-term.
(4) Innovation. The extent to which
the applicant demonstrates that its
proposed collaboration model or
models, as well as its dissemination
plan, are either (a) substantially
different from other efforts in its area of
focus; or (b) substantially more effective
than similar efforts in its area of focus.
Final Definitions, Requirements, and
Selection Criteria
We will announce the final
definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria after considering responses to
this notice and other information
available to the Department. This notice
does not preclude us from proposing
priorities or additional definitions,
requirements, or selection criteria,
subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these proposed
definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria, we will invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3 (f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24693
and to the extent practical—the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavior
changes.’’
We are taking this proposed
regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify
the costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that maximize net
benefits. The Department believes that
this proposed regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
associated with this regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a
preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and Federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing
collections of information in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24694
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices
This helps ensure that the public
understands the Department’s collection
instructions, respondents can provide
the requested data in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
the Department can properly assess the
impact of collection requirements on
respondents.
We estimate that each applicant
would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed
requirements and selection criteria,
prepare the application, and obtain
necessary clearances. The total number
of hours for all expected applicants is an
estimated 7,040 hours. We estimate the
total cost per hour of the applicant-level
staff who will carry out this work to be
$57 per hour. The total estimated cost
for all applicants would be $401,280.
We have submitted an Information
Collection Request (ICR) for this
collection to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). If you want to
comment on the proposed information
collection requirements, please send
your comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S.
Department of Education. Send these
comments by email to
OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax
to (202) 395–6974. You may also send
a copy of these comments to the
Department contact named in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
In preparing your comments you may
want to review the ICR, which we
maintain in the Education Department
Information Collection System (EDICS)
at https://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on
‘‘Browse Pending Collections.’’ This
proposed collection is identified as
proposed collection 1855–NEW. This
ICR is also available on OMB’s RegInfo
Web site at www.reginfo.gov.
We consider your comments on this
proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection, including the validity of our
methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information we
collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those
who must respond. This includes
exploring the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:14 Apr 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed definitions,
requirements, and selection criteria
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure
that OMB gives your comments full
consideration, it is important that OMB
receives your comments on the
proposed collection by May 25, 2012.
This does not affect the deadline for
your comments to us on the proposed
definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria.
Please note that a Federal agency
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information unless OMB approves the
collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection
instrument displays a currently valid
OMB control number. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no person is
required to comply with, or is subject to
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information if the
collection instrument does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
We will provide the OMB control
number when we publish the notice of
final definitions, requirements, and
selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 20, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012–10005 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Nevada
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This notice announces a
meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory
Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public
notice of this meeting be announced in
the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 5
p.m.
SUMMARY:
Atomic Testing Museum,
755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89119.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denise Rupp, Board Administrator, 232
Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas,
Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630–0522;
Fax (702) 295–5300 or Email:
nssab@nv.doe.gov.
ADDRESSES:
Purpose of
the Board: The purpose of the Board is
to make recommendations to DOE–EM
and site management in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste
management, and related activities.
Tentative Agenda:
1. Groundwater Update
2. Student Liaison Project Update
3. Industrial Sites—Long-term
Monitoring at Closed Sites
Public Participation: The EM SSAB,
Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the
public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to
accommodate persons with physical
disabilities or special needs. If you
require special accommodations due to
a disability, please contact Denise Rupp
at least seven days in advance of the
meeting at the phone number listed
above. Written statements may be filed
with the Board either before or after the
meeting. Individuals who wish to make
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24690-24694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards; Proposed
Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria; Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.282P
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes definitions, requirements, and selection criteria for the
Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards (Collaboration Awards)
and may use these definitions, requirements, and selection criteria for
a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. The Assistant
Deputy Secretary is taking this action to create incentives for charter
schools (as defined in section 5210(1) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) to (a) collaborate with non-
chartered public schools (as defined in this notice) and non-chartered
local educational agencies (LEAs) to share and transfer best
educational and operational practices at the elementary and secondary
school levels; and (b) disseminate information about these
collaborations across the Nation.
The Collaboration Awards competition would be designed to encourage
charter schools and non-chartered public schools or non-chartered LEAs
to share resources and responsibilities, build trust and teamwork,
boost academic excellence in charter schools and non-chartered public
schools alike, and provide students and their parents with a range of
effective educational options.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 25, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Erin Pfeltz, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W255,
Washington, DC 20202-5970; or to Nancy Paulu, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W246, Washington, DC 20202-
5970.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
addresses: ed.gov">erin.pfeltz@ed.gov or ed.gov">nancy.paulu@ed.gov. You must include
the phrase ``Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards--Comments on
Proposed Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria'' in the
subject line of your electronic message.
[[Page 24691]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Pfeltz at (202) 205-3525 or by
email at ed.gov">erin.pfeltz@ed.gov or Nancy Paulu at (202) 205-5392 or by
email at ed.gov">nancy.paulu@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
definition, requirement, or selection criterion that each comment
addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed definitions, requirements, and selection criteria. Please let
us know of ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of
the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 4W255, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Washington, DC time,
Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record:
On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance
to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this
type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program:
The purpose of the Charter Schools Program (CSP) is to increase
national understanding of the charter school model by---
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the
effects on students, student academic achievement, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available
to students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools
for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the
amount the States have typically provided for traditional public
schools.
Background:
Over the past 20 years, the charter school movement has grown in
size and significance. The first charter school opened in Minnesota in
1992; today more than 5,000 charter schools are spread across the
Nation. As charter schools have increased in number and popularity, so
too has the tension between charter schools and traditional public
schools and LEAs, as they compete for students. We believe that
encouraging and facilitating collaboration between charter schools and
non-chartered public schools and non-chartered LEAs can help change
this dynamic.
By encouraging charter schools, other public schools, and LEAs to
work together as partners, the Department, through the Collaboration
Awards competition, aims to increase national understanding of the
charter school model. By creating partnerships and carrying out
dissemination activities, non-chartered public schools and non-
chartered LEAs would get first-hand experience with the charter school
model--freedom from some of the strict rules, regulations, and statutes
that inhibit the flexible operation of traditional public schools and
LEAs in exchange for increased accountability for producing certain
results, as set forth in each school's charter. The Collaboration
Awards competition would further support recent Federal initiatives
that encourage Federal agencies to provide awards as incentives to
stimulate innovation and promote agencies' core missions.
Authorized Activities:
The Collaboration Awards competition would be conducted as a part
of the CSP's national activities. Under section 5205(a) of the ESEA,
the Secretary reserves CSP funds to carry out a number of national
activities, which may include, among other things, (a) providing
information, training, and assistance to charter schools; (b)
disseminating best or promising practices in charter schools to other
public schools; (c) conducting evaluations or studies of the impact of
charter schools on student achievement; and (d) providing other types
of support and technical assistance to charter schools and other
applicants for assistance under the CSP. The required activities that
we are proposing for Collaboration Awards are within the scope of these
authorized activities.
Collaboration Award grantees would collaborate, and disseminate
information about the collaborations, in a broad range of areas within
the scope of activities authorized under section 5205(a) of the ESEA.
Awards would be based on the quality of existing or past collaboration
activities as well as proposals in the grant applications for future
collaboration activities, which could involve continuing, modifying, or
expanding the existing or past model or models of collaboration. In
making awards, the Secretary also would consider the quality of
proposals to disseminate information or best practices regarding the
collaboration activities upon which the award is based.
Program Authority:
The CSP is authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i. CSP national
activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d.
Proposed Definitions
In addition to the definitions in section 5210 of the ESEA, which
include the definition of charter school, we are proposing the
following definitions for the Collaboration Awards competition. We may
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which we make
awards under a Collaboration Awards competition.
Collaboration refers to the activities of a partnership in which
two or more organizations or entities work together to accomplish a
common goal, which may involve sharing or transferring best practices
or strategies.
Non-chartered local educational agency (LEA) refers to an LEA that
does not qualify as a charter school as defined in section 5210(1) of
the ESEA or under State law.
Non-chartered public school refers to a public school that does not
qualify as a charter school under section 5210(1) of the ESEA or under
State law.
Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or
could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate (2) other
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b)
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests;
[[Page 24692]]
student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and
other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable
across schools.
Proposed Competition Requirements
Background
The Department proposes to use the Collaboration Awards competition
to encourage collaboration between charter schools and non-chartered
public schools and non-chartered LEAs, as well as to disseminate
information and share or transfer best practices to improve educational
and operational practices in public schools, including public charter
schools. The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes the following requirements to support these goals. The
Department may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in
which this competition is in effect.
Proposed Eligibility Requirements
1. Eligible applicants are charter schools (as defined in section
5210(1) of the ESEA). In order to be eligible to receive an award under
a Collaboration Awards competition, a charter school must apply in
partnership with at least one non-chartered public school (as defined
in this notice) or non-chartered LEA (as defined in this notice) and
have the support of the partner(s) to participate in the competition.
Multiple charter schools may be included in the partnership so long as
they apply in partnership with each other and with at least one non-
chartered public school (as defined in this notice) or non-chartered
LEA (as defined in this notice).
2. The partnership must comply with the requirements for group
applications set forth in 34 CFR 75.127-129.
Note: Only an eligible party under the competition may apply for
a grant or be the fiscal agent for a grant. Thus a non-chartered
public school or a non-chartered LEA would not be eligible to be the
lead applicant or fiscal agent for an exemplary charter school
collaboration award.
3. An applicant may submit more than one application if each
application proposes to carry out substantially different authorized
activities.
4. Applicants may not have any significant compliance issues (as
defined in this notice), including in the areas of student safety,
financial management, and statutory or regulatory compliance.
Proposed Application Requirements
An applicant for a Collaboration Award must--
(1) Provide a detailed narrative describing (a) the applicant's
past or existing collaboration model or models (which may involve more
than one area of collaboration or partner); (b) the applicant's
proposal to continue, modify, or expand the collaboration model or
models (which may include adding new areas of collaboration or
partners); and (c) the applicant's plan to disseminate information
about the collaboration model or models (which may include information
about best practices) to other public schools, including chartered
schools, non-chartered schools, and non-chartered LEAs. The proposed
collaboration model or models may focus on a wide range of areas within
the scope of activities authorized under section 5205(a) of the ESEA,
which includes, but is not limited to, curriculum and instruction, data
management and sharing, organization and management, personnel,
facilities, finances, Federal programs, standards, assessments, special
education services, English learners, students with other special
needs, student transportation, and professional development and
training.
Note: In a particular year, the Secretary may restrict
applications to one or more areas of focus or authorized activity
under section 5205(a) of the ESEA.
(2) Provide written assurance from authorized officials of the
entities involved in the partnership that all participants--
Agree to submit an application for an award under the
competition and have read, understand, and agree with the application
for the competition; and
Agree to have the executive summary or narrative of the
application, with proprietary information redacted, published on the
U.S. Department of Education's Web site (ed.gov), data.ed.gov, the
National Charter School Resource Center Web site
(charterschoolcenter.org), or any other Web site or publication deemed
appropriate by the Secretary;
(3) Submit a partnership agreement that meets the requirements of
34 CFR 75.128(b).
(4) Provide a clear description of the goals and desired outcomes
of the proposed collaboration and current or proposed measures that
would be used to gauge success in meeting those goals and desired
outcomes.
(5) Describe any past, existing, or anticipated obstacles to
implementing the collaboration model or models or to disseminating
information about the collaboration model or models, and the strategies
that were or will be used to overcome those obstacles.
(6) Specify how the award money will be used to implement the
collaboration model or models and to disseminate information about the
collaboration model or models in accordance with section 5205(a) of the
ESEA.
(7) Specify how the award money will be shared between the partners
named in the application. If grant activities will be carried out by
both the applicant (the charter school) and its partner(s), the
applicant must describe in the application and in the partnership
agreement how the award money will be allocated between the partners,
including the applicant.
Proposed Award Amounts and Funding Restrictions
(1) The Department will announce in a notice inviting applications
published in the Federal Register the estimated amount of funds
available for a given Collaboration Awards competition and the number
of awards that we expect to make.
(2) A Collaboration Award grantee must use the award funds to carry
out one or more of the following activities: (a) Continuing the
collaboration model or models for which it received the award, as
described in its grant application; (b) modifying the collaboration
model or models for which it received the award, as described in the
application; (c) expanding the collaboration model or models for which
it received the award by adding additional areas of collaboration, as
described in the application; or (d) expanding the collaboration model
or models for which it received the award by adding additional partners
(schools or LEAs), as described in the application. Collaboration Award
grantees also must use award funds to disseminate information about the
collaboration activities to other public schools, including chartered
schools, non-chartered schools, and non-chartered LEAs. All activities
carried out under the Collaboration Awards must fall within the scope
of authorized activities set forth in section 5205(a) of the ESEA.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The selection criteria we propose are designed to-- (1) support
collaborations between charter schools and non-chartered public schools
and non-chartered LEAs that are most effective in raising student
outcomes and creating efficiencies; (2) further the CSP's mission of
increasing national understanding of the charter school
[[Page 24693]]
model; and (3) expand the number of high-quality charter schools.
Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
Collaboration Awards competitions and further proposes that we may
apply one or more of these criteria alone or in combination with one or
more selection criteria (1) based on the CSP authorizing statute or (2)
in 34 CFR 75.210, in any year in which this program is in effect. In
the notice inviting applications or the application package, or both,
we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
The Secretary could make awards to the top-rated applications
proposing to carry out activities in specific areas of focus (e.g.,
curriculum and instruction, data management and sharing, organization
and management) within the scope of authorized activities under section
5205(a) of the ESEA. In a particular year, the Secretary may restrict
applications to one or more areas of focus. Additionally, in making
awards, the Secretary could fund applications out of rank order in
order to ensure that the Collaboration Awards are distributed
throughout each area of the Nation or a State.
(1) Record of and potential for success. (A) The extent to which
the applicant's past or existing collaboration model or models have
improved educational outcomes and operational practices, and (B) the
extent to which the applicant's proposed collaboration model or models
and dissemination plan will achieve one or more of the following
demonstrable results:
(i) Improved operational practices and productivity among all
partners;
(ii) Improved student achievement (as defined in this notice);
(iii) Improved high school graduation rates;
(iv) Improved rates of college matriculation and college
graduation; or
(v) Improved rates of attendance and graduation from other
postsecondary (i.e., non-college) institutions or programs.
Note: In the notice inviting applications or the application
package, or both, we may assign points individually to the factors
listed under this selection criterion.
Note: The Secretary invites comment on this criterion
particularly with respect to measures that might be used to
determine the extent to which an applicant's proposed collaboration
model or models and dissemination plan will achieve improved
operational practices and productivity among all partners.
(2) Quality of the project design. The extent to which the
applicant proposes a high-quality plan to use its award money to
improve educational outcomes and operational practices in public
schools, including charter schools.
(3) Potential for scalability. The extent to which the applicant's
proposed collaboration model or models can be replicated or adapted
beyond the participating partners by other public schools or non-
chartered LEAs and sustained long-term.
(4) Innovation. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that
its proposed collaboration model or models, as well as its
dissemination plan, are either (a) substantially different from other
efforts in its area of focus; or (b) substantially more effective than
similar efforts in its area of focus.
Final Definitions, Requirements, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final definitions, requirements, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final definitions, requirements, and selection criteria after
considering responses to this notice and other information available to
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing
priorities or additional definitions, requirements, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed definitions,
requirements, and selection criteria, we will invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3 (f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practical--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavior
changes.''
We are taking this proposed regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify the costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. The Department believes that this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
[[Page 24694]]
This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's
collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in
the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the
Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on
respondents.
We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed requirements and selection
criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The
total number of hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 7,040
hours. We estimate the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff
who will carry out this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated
cost for all applicants would be $401,280.
We have submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) for this
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If you want to
comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please
send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send
these comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202)
395-6974. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department
contact named in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which we
maintain in the Education Department Information Collection System
(EDICS) at https://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on ``Browse Pending
Collections.'' This proposed collection is identified as proposed
collection 1855-NEW. This ICR is also available on OMB's RegInfo Web
site at www.reginfo.gov.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed definitions, requirements, and
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives
your comments on the proposed collection by May 25, 2012. This does not
affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed
definitions, requirements, and selection criteria.
Please note that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the
PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the
collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. We will provide the OMB control number when we publish the
notice of final definitions, requirements, and selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: April 20, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012-10005 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P