Proposed Requirements-Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge; Phase 2, 36958-36964 [2012-14954]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36958
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.1157 to read as follows:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(a) Location. The following areas are
security zones: All navigable waters,
from the surface to the sea floor within
a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship
located within 3 nautical miles of the
Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light
(Light List Number 3750; 34–24–17.364
N, 119–41–16.260W).
(b) Definition. ‘‘Cruise ship’’ as used
in this section means any vessel, except
for a ferry, over 100 feet in length,
authorized to carry more than 12
passengers for hire; making voyages
lasting more than 24 hours, any part of
which is on the high seas; and for which
passengers are embarked or
disembarked in the U.S. or its
territories.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under general
security zone regulations in subpart D,
entry into or remaining in the zones
described in paragraph (a) of this
section is prohibited unless authorized
by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port
(COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach (LA–
LB), or a designated representative of
COTP LA–LB.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area
of the security zone may contact the
COTP LA–LB at telephone number 1–
310–521–3801 or on VHF–FM channel
16 (156.800 MHz) to seek permission to
transit the area. If permission is granted,
all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of
the Port, or his designated
representative.
[FR Doc. 2012–14973 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0012; CFDA
Number 84.412A]
RIN 1810–AB15
Proposed Requirements—Race to the
Top—Early Learning Challenge;
Phase 2
Department of Education and
Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Proposed requirements.
AGENCY:
§ 165.1157 Security Zone; Cruise Ships,
Santa Barbara, California.
Dated: May 11, 2012.
R.R. Laferriere,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Los Angeles Long Beach.
34 CFR Chapter II
The Secretary of Education
and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (hereafter ‘‘the Secretaries’’)
propose requirements for Phase 2 of the
Race to the Top—Early Learning
Challenge (RTT–ELC) program. In this
phase (Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC
program), we would make awards to
certain States that applied for, but did
not receive, funding under Phase 1 of
the RTT–ELC competition held in fiscal
year (FY) 2011 (FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition). Specifically, we would
consider eligible the five highest-scoring
applicants that did not receive funding
in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition,
each of which received approximately
75 percent or more of the available
points under the competition. We take
this action to fund down the slate of the
FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition and to
establish the information and
assurances that the eligible applicants
would need to provide in order to
receive funding under Phase 2 of the
RTT–ELC program.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before July 20, 2012.
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 email. To ensure
that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID and the term ‘‘Race to the
Top-Early Learning Challenge Phase 2
Awards’’ at the top of your comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘How to Use This Site.’’
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
requirements, address them to the Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education
(Attention: Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge Phase 2 Comments),
U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20202–6200.
Privacy Note: The Department of
Education’s policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public
available for public viewing in their entirety
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should be careful to include in their
comments only information that they wish to
make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202–
6200. Telephone: (202) 260–3793 or by
email:
RTT.Early.Learning.Challenge@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action:
The Departments of Education and
Health and Human Services
(Departments) plan to implement Phase
2 of the RTT–ELC program by funding
down the slate from the FY 2011 RTT–
ELC competition. Specifically, the
Departments plan to make awards
available to the next five highest-scoring
applicants that did not receive funding
under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition. Because the amount of
available funds in FY 2012 is limited,
this action proposes specific
requirements that the five eligible
applicants must meet in order to receive
up to 50 percent of the funds they
requested in their FY 2011 RTT–ELC
applications.
Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action: In this notice,
we propose to establish a limited
number of application requirements,
assurances, and budget requirements
that the five eligible applicants must
meet in order to receive funds under
Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program.
The Application Requirements, which
can be found in section III of the
Proposed Requirements section of this
notice, include a requirement that each
eligible applicant must: (1) Describe
how it would implement the activities
proposed in Core Area B (selection
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
criteria one through five) of its FY 2011
RTT–ELC application; (2) describe how
it would implement the activities
proposed in Competitive Preference
Priority 2 of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application; and (3) from two or more of
the three Focused Investment Areas (C,
D, and E) in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application, select activities proposed in
response to one or more selection
criteria. The Application Requirements
section further explains how applicants
may make adjustments to the scope of
the activities they proposed in their FY
2011 RTT–ELC applications to ensure
that the activities can be carried out
successfully with the amount of funds
available in Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC
program.
The Application Assurances, which
can be found in section IV of the
Proposed Requirements section of this
notice, include a set of assurances for
eligible applicants to include in their
applications for Phase 2 RTT–ELC
awards. These assurances relate to
commitments made in the FY 2011
RTT–ELC applications. For example, in
order to receive a Phase 2 RTT–ELC
award, an eligible applicant must
maintain the commitments made in
Section A(1) of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application, which describes existing
State funding for early learning. Each
eligible applicant must also maintain
commitments to engage in partnerships
described in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application. This is important because
the strength of these commitments
influenced how reviewers scored the FY
2011 RTT–ELC applications. These
commitments are also critical to
building strong State systems of early
learning and development.
The proposed Budget Requirements,
which can be found in section V of the
Proposed Requirements section of this
notice, require that an eligible applicant
complete a revised budget and narrative
that includes an explanation of why the
eligible applicant has selected the
activities it proposes to carry out (as
described under ‘‘Application
Requirements’’) and why such activities
will have the greatest impact on
advancing its high-quality plan for early
learning.
Costs and Benefits: We have
determined that these proposed
requirements would not impose
significant additional costs to States, the
eligible applicants under the RTT–ELC
program, or the Federal Government
and that the potential benefits would
exceed the costs. The Departments
believe States would incur minimal
costs in developing plans and budgets
for implementing selected activities
from their FY 2011 RTT–ELC proposals,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
because such planning would entail
revisions to existing plans and budgets
already developed as part of the FY
2011 RTT–ELC application process.
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 requirements, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific
proposed requirement 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
requirements. Please let us know of any
further ways we could reduce potential
costs or increase potential benefits
while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person in room 3E230,
400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
DC time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Please contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the RTT–ELC program is to improve the
quality of early learning and
development and close the achievement
gap for children with high needs. This
program focuses on improving early
learning and development for young
children by supporting States’ efforts to
increase the number and percentage of
low-income and disadvantaged
children, in each age group of infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers, who are
enrolled in high-quality early learning
and development programs; and
designing and implementing an
integrated system of high-quality early
learning and development programs and
services.
Program Authority: Sections 14005
and 14006, Division A, of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36959
as amended by section 1832(b) of
Division B of Public Law 112–10, the
Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,
and the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of
Division F of Pub. L. 112–74, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012).
Proposed Requirements
Background:
A critical focus of the Departments is
supporting America’s youngest learners
and helping ensure that children,
especially young children with high
needs, such as those who are from lowincome families, English learners, and
children with disabilities or
developmental delays, enter
kindergarten ready to succeed in school
and in life. A robust body of research
demonstrates that high-quality early
learning and development programs and
services can improve young children’s
health, social-emotional, and cognitive
outcomes; enhance school readiness;
and help close the school readiness
gap1 2 that exists between children with
high needs and their peers at the time
they enter kindergarten.3 4
To address this school readiness gap,
the Departments have identified, as high
priorities, strengthening the quality of
early learning and development
programs and increasing access to highquality early learning and development
programs for all children, including
those with high needs.
On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne
Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius
announced the Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge, a new $500 million
State-level grant competition authorized
under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), as
amended by section 1832(b) of the
Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.
Through the RTT–ELC program, the
1 Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.
S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social
development. Teachers College Record, 112(3),
579–620.
2 Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Arteaga,
I.A., & White, B.A.B. (2011). School-based early
childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects
by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science,
Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/
early/2011/06/08/science.1203618.abstract doi:
10.1126/science.1203618.
3 Princiotta, D., Flanagan, K. D., and Germino
Hausken, E. (2006). Fifth Grade: Findings From The
Fifth-Grade Follow-up of the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99
(ECLS–K). (NCES 2006–038) U.S. Department of
Education.
4 Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K.,
Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J.(2009). Disparities
in Early Learning and Development: Lessons from
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth
Cohort (ECLS–B). Washington, DC: Child Trends.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36960
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Departments seek to help close the
achievement gap between children with
high needs and their peers by
supporting State efforts to build strong
systems of early learning and
development that provide increased
access to high-quality programs for the
children who need them most.
The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition
represented an unprecedented
opportunity for States to focus deeply
on their early learning and development
systems for children from birth through
age five. (See notice inviting
applications for the competition,
published in the Federal Register on
August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).)
Through the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition, States were given an
opportunity to build a more unified
approach to supporting young children
and their families—an approach that
increases access to high-quality early
learning and development programs and
services and helps ensure that children
enter kindergarten with the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions toward
learning they need to be successful.
In December 2011, the Departments
made awards to the nine highest-scoring
applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition: California, Delaware,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and
Washington. (Due to the limited amount
of funding available and its ranking on
the slate, California received
approximately half of the funding it
requested.)
On December 23, 2011, Public Law
112–74, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012, which made
$550 million available for the Race to
the Top Fund, was signed into law. This
legislation authorized the Secretary of
Education to make Race to the Top
Fund awards on ‘‘the basis of previously
submitted applications.’’ The
Department of Education must obligate
these funds by December 31, 2012.
On April 9, 2012, the Departments
announced that approximately $133
million of the $550 million appropriated
for the Race to the Top Fund would be
made available to the next five highestscoring applicants from the FY 2011
RTT–ELC competition. These five
applicants, each of which received
approximately 75 percent or more of the
available points under the competition,
are Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Wisconsin. Throughout
this notice, these States are referred to
as ‘‘eligible applicants’’ for Phase 2 of
the RTT–ELC program, under which the
Departments will fund down the slate of
applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition. While $133 million is not
sufficient to support full
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
implementation of the plans submitted
by these States in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition, the Secretaries believe that
supporting high-scoring applicants that
did not receive funding under the FY
2011 RTT–ELC competition with FY
2012 funding will help build on the
momentum from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition and engage more States to
transform the patchwork of
disconnected early childhood programs
into a coordinated and high-quality
system. Therefore, we propose to make
FY 2012 funds available to the eligible
applicants at up to 50 percent of the
funds each requested in its application
for funds under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition. Through this notice, we
propose the requirements for
implementing Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC
program, under which the Departments
will fund down the slate from the FY
2011 RTT–ELC competition.
The Department of Education may use
any unused funds from Phase 2 of the
RTT–ELC program to make awards in
the FY 2012 district-level Race to the
Top competition, which will be
announced in a separate notice
published in the Federal Register.
Conversely, the Department of
Education may use any unused FY 2012
funds from the district-level Race to the
Top Fund competition to supplement
the awards for Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC
program.
In this notice, we propose specific
requirements that eligible applicants
would have to meet in order to apply for
up to 50 percent of the funds they
requested in their FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition applications.
The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition
identified five key reform areas
representing the foundation of an
effective early learning and
development reform agenda that is
focused on school readiness and
ongoing educational success. These
areas, which provided a framework for
the competition’s priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria, are
as follows:
(A) Successful State Systems;
(B) High-Quality, Accountable
Programs;
(C) Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children;
(D) A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce; and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
The first two of these reform areas, (A)
and (B), are core areas of focus for this
program (hereafter ‘‘Core Areas’’), and
applicants under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition were required to respond to
all selection criteria under these Core
Areas. The reform areas in (C), (D), and
(E) are areas (hereafter ‘‘Focused
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Investment Areas’’) where applicants
directed targeted attention to specific
activities that were relevant to their
State’s context. Applicants were
required to address each Focused
Investment Area but not all of the
selection criteria under them.
Proposed Requirements
The Departments propose the
following requirements to implement
Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program.
Except where otherwise indicated in
this notice, the priorities, requirements,
and definitions in the notice inviting
applications for the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition, published in the Federal
Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR
53564), would also apply to the RTT–
ELC Phase 2 application process.
I. Proposed Eligibility Requirements
Eligible applicants for the Phase 2
RTT–ELC award process are those States
that applied for funding under the FY
2011 RTT–ELC competition and
received approximately 75 percent or
more of the available points, but that
did not receive grant awards under that
competition. Therefore, only the States
of Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Wisconsin are eligible to
apply for Phase 2 RTT–ELC awards.
II. Proposed Award Process
To receive a Phase 2 RTT–ELC award,
an eligible applicant must submit—
(a) An application, consistent with its
FY 2011 RTT–ELC application, that—
(1) Meets the application
requirements described in the Proposed
Application Requirements section of
this notice; and
(2) Provides the assurances described
in the Proposed Application Assurances
section of this notice; and
(b) For review and approval by both
Departments, a detailed plan and budget
describing the activities selected from
its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application that
would be implemented with Phase 2
RTT–ELC funding, in accordance with
the Budget Requirements in this notice.
Note: We encourage eligible applicants to
partner with each other and currently funded
RTT–ELC grantees in carrying out specific
activities (such as validation of a State’s
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System (TQRIS), implementation of
longitudinal data systems, or development of
a kindergarten entry assessment). Each
eligible applicant may apply for Phase 2
RTT–ELC awards individually or as a
member of a consortium (with other eligible
applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127–129. In any
event, an eligible applicant must propose
activities for Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC
program that are consistent with its FY 2011
RTT–ELC application.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
III. Proposed Application Requirements
We propose the following application
requirements for eligible applicants that
apply for Phase 2 RTT–ELC awards:
(a) Each eligible applicant must
describe how it would implement an
organizational structure for managing
the grant that is consistent with the
activities and commitments described in
response to selection criterion
A(3)(a)(1) 5 of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application, and describe how it would
implement the activities described in
response to Core Area B (selection
criteria one through five) of its FY 2011
RTT–ELC application using a Phase 2
RTT–ELC award. The FY 2011 RTT–
ELC Core Area B criteria promote broad
participation in the State’s TQRIS across
a range of programs, active and
continuous program quality
improvement, and the publication of
program ratings so that families can
make informed decisions about which
programs can best serve the needs of
their children. Specifically, in Core Area
B of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application,
each applicant had to demonstrate that
it had developed and adopted, or had a
high-quality Plan to develop and adopt,
a TQRIS. In addition, each applicant
must also implement the activities
proposed under Competitive Preference
Priority 2, including all early learning
and development programs in the
TQRIS.
(b) In addition to addressing the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, each eligible applicant must
select and describe how it will
implement activities that it identified in
its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application in
response to Focused Investment Areas
C, D, or E. The eligible applicant must
select activities from two or more of the
three Focused Investment Areas C, D,
and E, and the activities must be
responsive to one or more of the
selection criteria under the Focused
Investment Areas chosen by the
applicant. (Eligible applicants may
implement additional activities
proposed under more than one selection
criterion within each Focused
Investment Area.) In determining which
selection criteria to address given the
amount of available funds under Phase
2 of the RTT–ELC program, each eligible
applicant should give consideration to
those activities that will have the
greatest impact on improving access to
high-quality early learning programs for
children with high needs.
5 The selection criteria from the FY 2011 RTT–
ELC application can be found at https://www2.ed.
gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/
2011-412.doc (pp. 26–74).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
Note: In light of the reduced funding
available, applicants may make adjustments
in the scope of services provided to meet
selection criteria in Focused Investment
Areas C, D, and E. For example, an applicant
may propose to serve fewer programs or
regions of the State than it proposed to serve
in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application. The
eligible applicant must provide a detailed
explanation of its rationale for such
adjustments and also must amend its targets
in Tables B(2)(c) and B(4)(c)(1–2) of the FY
2011 RTT–ELC application, as needed.
Applicants should ensure that the
adjustments do not diminish the program’s
impact on improving access to high quality
early learning programs for children with
high needs. In addition, when the scope of
work is adjusted by targeting specific regions
in the State, the activities should be
consistent across regions.
(c) In addition, each eligible applicant
may implement the activities it
proposed in response to the Invitational
Priorities from its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application. Eligible applicants that
wrote to Invitational Priority 2 are
encouraged to pursue public-private
partnerships to the extent that this will
augment total funds available for
carrying out the activities described in
the FY 2011 RTT–ELC application.
Note: We encourage grantees to enter
into consortia, where relevant, in order
to maximize the use of available funds.
Please refer to section (V)(B) later in this
notice.
(d) We will use Phase 2 RTT–ELC
funding to support only those activities
included in an eligible applicant’s FY
2011 RTT–ELC application. Therefore,
an eligible applicant must not include
new activities in its Phase 2 RTT–ELC
application.
(e) Each Phase 2 RTT–ELC application
must include current signatures by the
eligible applicant’s Governor or an
authorized representative signing on
behalf of the Governor; an authorized
representative from the eligible
applicant’s Lead Agency; and an
authorized representative from each
Participating State Agency.
(f) Each Phase 2 RTT–ELC application
must include a newly signed
Memorandum of Understanding and a
preliminary scope of work for each
Participating State Agency.
IV. Proposed Application Assurances
Each eligible applicant must include
in its Phase 2 RTT–ELC application the
following assurances from its Governor
or authorized representative of the
Governor of its State:
(a) While the State may make
appropriate adjustments to the scope,
budget, timeline, and performance
targets, consistent with the reduced
amount of funding that is available
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36961
under the Phase 2 RTT–ELC award
process, the State will maintain
consistency with the absolute priority
and all program and eligibility
requirements of the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition.
(b) The State will maintain its
commitment to and investment in highquality, accessible early learning and
development programs and services for
children with high needs, as described
in Section A(1) of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application.
(c) Subject to adjustments due to the
reduced amount of funding available
under the Phase 2 RTT–ELC award
process, the State will maintain its plan
to establish strong participation and
commitment by Participating State
Agencies and other early learning and
development stakeholders as described
in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application.
(d) The State will maintain its
commitment to integrating and aligning
resources and policies across
Participating State Agencies as
described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011
RTT–ELC application.
(e) The State will comply with all of
the accountability, transparency, and
reporting requirements that applied to
the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition. (See
the notice inviting applications for the
FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition,
published in the Federal Register on
August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).)
(f) The State will comply with the
requirements of any evaluation of the
RTT–ELC program, or of specific
activities it proposes to pursue as part
of the program, conducted and
supported by the Departments.
V. Proposed Budget Requirements
An eligible applicant may apply for
up to 50 percent of the funds requested
in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application.
The following budget requirements
would apply to the Phase 2 RTT–ELC
award process:
(a) Budget Narrative. Each eligible
applicant must submit a detailed
narrative and budget, using the format
and instructions provided in the FY
2011 RTT–ELC application package,
which describes the activities it has
selected from its FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application that it proposes to
implement with a Phase 2 RTT–ELC
award. This detailed narrative must
include an explanation of why the
eligible applicant has selected these
activities and why the eligible applicant
believes they will have the greatest
impact on advancing its high-quality
plan for early learning. The narrative
must also explain where the applicant
has made adjustments (such as a
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
36962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
reduction in the number of participating
programs or areas of the State served) to
ensure that the activities can be carried
out successfully with the amount of
funds available. In reviewing the
narrative, we may request the applicant
submit revisions to address concerns
related to feasibility or the strategic use
of funds. (See the notice inviting
applications for the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition, published in the Federal
Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR
53564).)
(b) Applying as a Consortium. As
discussed elsewhere in this notice, we
encourage eligible applicants to form
consortia with each other and partner
with currently funded RTT–ELC
grantees in carrying out specific
activities (such as validation of a State’s
TQRIS, implementation of longitudinal
data systems, or development of a
kindergarten entry assessment). Eligible
applicants may apply individually or as
members of a consortium (with other
eligible applicants) under 34 CFR
75.127–129. Each applicant must
propose activities consistent with its FY
2011 RTT–ELC application. Therefore,
each eligible applicant that chooses to
apply as a member of a consortium or
to partner with a current RTT–ELC
grantee in carrying out project activities
must include in its revised budget
narrative an explanation of how the
activities to be undertaken by the
consortium or partnership are consistent
with the applicant’s FY 2011 RTT–ELC
application and how the consortium or
partnership will help the applicant
implement its selected activities. It is
important to note that an applicant may
propose some activities that it would
execute alone and others that it would
execute as part of a consortium.
(c) Available Funds. The maximum
amounts of funding for which each
eligible applicant may apply are shown
in the following table. The amounts in
this table are based on the requirement
that each eligible applicant may apply
for up to half of the amount it requested
in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application.
notice and other information available
to the Departments. This notice does not
preclude the Departments from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these requirements, we
invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretaries 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 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
stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action would have an
annual effect on the economy of more
than $100 million because the amount
of government transfers through the
Phase 2 RTT–ELC award process
exceeds that amount. Therefore, this
proposed action is ‘‘economically
significant’’ and subject to review by
OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of
State
Maximum amount
Executive Order 12866.
Colorado .......................
$29,925,888 Notwithstanding this determination, we
Illinois ............................
34,798,696 have assessed the potential costs and
New Mexico ..................
25,000,000 benefits—both quantitative and
Oregon ..........................
20,508,902 qualitative—of this proposed regulatory
Wisconsin .....................
22,701,389 action and have determined that the
benefits would justify the costs.
Final Requirements:
The Departments have also reviewed
We will announce the final
these proposed requirements under
requirements for the Phase 2 RTT–ELC
Executive Order 13563, which
award process in a notice in the Federal supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
Register. We will determine the final
principles, structures, and definitions
requirements after considering any
governing regulatory review established
comments submitted in response to this in Executive Order 12866. To the extent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account—among other things, and
to the extent practicable—the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including providing economic
incentives—such as user fees or
marketable permits—to encourage the
desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to
make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these proposed
requirements only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify
their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that would
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Departments
believe these proposed regulations are
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we
discuss the need for regulatory action,
the potential costs and benefits, net
budget impacts, assumptions,
limitations, and data sources, as well as
regulatory alternatives we considered.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed requirements are
needed to implement the Phase 2 RTT–
ELC award process in the manner that
the Departments believe will best enable
the program to achieve its objectives of
creating the conditions for effective
reform in State early learning systems in
States that had high-scoring
applications in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition but that did not receive
funding in that competition, to
implement key elements of their
comprehensive reform proposals
submitted as part of their FY 2011 RTT–
ELC competition applications.
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits of this regulatory action and
have determined that these proposed
requirements would not impose
significant additional costs to State
applicants or the Federal Government.
Most of the proposed requirements
contained in this notice involve reaffirming State commitments and plans
already completed as part of the FY
2011 RTT–ELC competition or other
Federal education programs. Similarly,
other proposed requirements, in
particular those related to maintaining
conditions for reform required under the
FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, would
require continuation of existing
commitments and investments rather
than the imposition of additional
burdens and costs. The Departments
believe those States that are eligible for
Phase 2 awards would incur minimal
costs in developing plans and budgets
for implementing selected activities
from their FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition proposals, because in most
cases such planning would entail
revisions to existing plans and budgets
already developed as part of the FY
2011 RTT–ELC application process and
not the development and
implementation of entirely new plans
and budgets. In all such cases, the
Departments believe that the benefits
resulting from the proposed
requirements for the Phase 2 RTT–ELC
award process, would exceed their
costs.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
An alternative to promulgation of the
types of requirements proposed in this
notice would be to use FY 2012 Race to
the Top funds to make awards to the
one or two highest-scoring unfunded
applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition and to use the remaining
funds for the Race to the Top districtlevel competition to be held in FY 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
We have concluded that approximately
$400 million in available FY 2012 funds
is necessary to support a meaningful
district-level competition.
Moreover, the Departments believe
that simply funding the one or two
highest-scoring applicants that were not
selected in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition would result in a missed
opportunity to reward the efforts of
other high-scoring applicants from that
competition and to enable them to make
meaningful progress on key elements of
their State early learning plans.
To assist the Departments in
complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries
invite comments on whether there may
be further opportunities to reduce any
potential costs or increase potential
benefits resulting from these proposed
requirements without impeding the
effective and efficient administration of
the RTT–ELC program.
36963
recipients) because they will be able to
meet the costs of compliance with this
regulatory action using the funds
provided under this program.
The Secretaries invite comments from
small entities as to whether they believe
this proposed regulatory action would
have a significant economic impact on
them and, if so, request evidence to
support that belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed requirements contain
information collection requirements.
However, because the eligible
applicants for Phase 2 RTT–ELC awards
are fewer than 10, these collections are
not subject to approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i)).
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
Accounting Statement
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ order relies on processes developed by
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/ State and local governments for
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
have prepared an accounting statement
This document provides early
showing the classification of the
notification of our specific plans and
expenditures associated with the
actions for this program.
provisions of this proposed regulatory
Assessment of Educational Impact: In
action. This table provides our best
accordance with section 411 of the
estimate of the Federal payments to be
General Education Provisions Act, 20
made to States under this program as a
result of this proposed regulatory action. U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Departments invite
comment on whether these proposed
Expenditures are classified as transfers
requirements would require
to States.
transmission of information that any
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICA- other agency or authority of the United
States gathers or makes available.
TION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
Category
Transfers
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer disc) on
Annualized Monetized $132,934,875.
request to the program contact person
Transfers.
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
From Whom To
Federal Government
Whom?
to States.
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The Phase 2 RTT–ELC award process
The official version of this document is
would provide approximately $133
the document published in the Federal
million in competitive grants to eligible Register. Free Internet access to the
applicants (those five applicants that
official edition of the Federal Register is
did not receive funding in the FY 2011
available via the Federal Digital System
RTT–ELC competition, but which
at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
received approximately 75 percent or
can view this document, as well as all
more of the available points under the
other documents of these Departments
competition).
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
The Secretaries certify that this
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
proposed regulatory action will not have available free at this site.
a significant economic impact on a
You may also access documents of
substantial number of small entities.
these Departments published in the
This proposed regulatory action will not Federal Register by using the article
have a significant economic impact on
search feature at
small entities (such as subaward
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
36964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules
through the advanced search feature at
this site, you can limit your search to
documents published by these
Departments.
Dated: June 14, 2012.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–14954 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0332; FRL–9687–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to the New Source Review
(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP);
Antibacksliding of Major NSR SIP
Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS); Major
Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) SIP
Requirements for the 1997 Eight-Hour
Ozone NAAQS; and Major NSR Reform
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the SIP for the State of
Texas that relate to antibacksliding of
Major NSR SIP Requirements for the
one-hour ozone NAAQS; Major NNSR
SIP requirements for the 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS; Major NSR Reform
Program with Plantwide Applicability
Limit (PAL) provisions; and non-PAL
aspects of the Major NSR SIP
requirements. EPA proposes to find that
these changes to the Texas SIP comply
with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act
or CAA) and EPA regulations and are
consistent with EPA policies. Texas
submitted revisions to these programs
on June 10, 2005, and February 1, 2006.
EPA disapproved these SIP revisions on
September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56424). In
response to the 2010 disapproval, Texas
submitted revisions to these programs in
two separate SIP submittals on March
11, 2011. These SIP submittals include
resubmittal of the rules that were
previously submitted June 10, 2005, and
February 1, 2006, and subsequently
disapproved by EPA on September 15,
2010. On February 22, 2012, Texas
proposed further revisions to the NSR
Reform Program to further clarify and
ensure compliance with Federal
requirements relating to NSR Reform.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
On May 3, 2012, Texas provided a letter
to EPA which requested that EPA
parallel process the revisions proposed
February 22, 2012, and included a
demonstration showing how its
submitted rules are at least as stringent
as the Federal NSR Reform Program.
Texas has requested that EPA parallel
process the revisions proposed February
22, 2012, and consider the May 3, 2012,
letter in the review of the March 11,
2011, SIP submittals. Today, EPA is
proposing to find that the March 11,
2011, SIP submittals; the February 22,
2012, proposed revisions; and the May
3, 2012, letter, address each of the
grounds for EPA’s September 15, 2010,
disapproval and other issues related to
the Texas NSR Reform revisions as
identified later. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to approve these two March
11, 2011, revisions; the February 22,
2012, proposed revisions for which
Texas has requested parallel processing;
and the May 3, 2012, letter as part of the
Texas NSR SIP. EPA is proposing this
action under section 110 and parts C
and D of the Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 20, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2011–0332 by one of the following
methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:
//www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
(2) Email: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at
spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.
(3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’
Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/
r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’
(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before
submitting comments.
(4) Fax: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air
Permits Section (6PD–R), at fax number
214–665–6762.
(5) Mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air
Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
(6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr.
Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section
(6PD–R), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such
deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
weekdays except for legal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–
0332. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means that EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through https://www.regulations.gov
your email address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Permits Section (6PD–R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of
Information Act Review Room between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
weekdays except for legal holidays.
Contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at
(214) 665–7253 to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
days in advance of your visit. There will
be a 15 cent per page fee for making
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36958-36964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14954]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A
[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0012; CFDA Number 84.412A]
RIN 1810-AB15
Proposed Requirements--Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge;
Phase 2
AGENCY: Department of Education and Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Proposed requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (hereafter ``the Secretaries'') propose requirements for
Phase 2 of the Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC)
program. In this phase (Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program), we would make
awards to certain States that applied for, but did not receive, funding
under Phase 1 of the RTT-ELC competition held in fiscal year (FY) 2011
(FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition). Specifically, we would consider eligible
the five highest-scoring applicants that did not receive funding in the
FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, each of which received approximately 75
percent or more of the available points under the competition. We take
this action to fund down the slate of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition
and to establish the information and assurances that the eligible
applicants would need to provide in order to receive funding under
Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 20, 2012.
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 email. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition,
please include the Docket ID and the term ``Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge Phase 2 Awards'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``How to Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed requirements,
address them to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(Attention: Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Phase 2 Comments),
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20202-6200.
Privacy Note:
The Department of Education's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202-
6200. Telephone: (202) 260-3793 or by email:
RTT.Early.Learning.Challenge@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Departments of Education and
Health and Human Services (Departments) plan to implement Phase 2 of
the RTT-ELC program by funding down the slate from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition. Specifically, the Departments plan to make awards
available to the next five highest-scoring applicants that did not
receive funding under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. Because the
amount of available funds in FY 2012 is limited, this action proposes
specific requirements that the five eligible applicants must meet in
order to receive up to 50 percent of the funds they requested in their
FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this
notice, we propose to establish a limited number of application
requirements, assurances, and budget requirements that the five
eligible applicants must meet in order to receive funds under Phase 2
of the RTT-ELC program.
The Application Requirements, which can be found in section III of
the Proposed Requirements section of this notice, include a requirement
that each eligible applicant must: (1) Describe how it would implement
the activities proposed in Core Area B (selection
[[Page 36959]]
criteria one through five) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application; (2)
describe how it would implement the activities proposed in Competitive
Preference Priority 2 of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application; and (3) from
two or more of the three Focused Investment Areas (C, D, and E) in its
FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, select activities proposed in response to
one or more selection criteria. The Application Requirements section
further explains how applicants may make adjustments to the scope of
the activities they proposed in their FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications to
ensure that the activities can be carried out successfully with the
amount of funds available in Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program.
The Application Assurances, which can be found in section IV of the
Proposed Requirements section of this notice, include a set of
assurances for eligible applicants to include in their applications for
Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards. These assurances relate to commitments made in
the FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications. For example, in order to receive a
Phase 2 RTT-ELC award, an eligible applicant must maintain the
commitments made in Section A(1) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application,
which describes existing State funding for early learning. Each
eligible applicant must also maintain commitments to engage in
partnerships described in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. This is
important because the strength of these commitments influenced how
reviewers scored the FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications. These commitments
are also critical to building strong State systems of early learning
and development.
The proposed Budget Requirements, which can be found in section V
of the Proposed Requirements section of this notice, require that an
eligible applicant complete a revised budget and narrative that
includes an explanation of why the eligible applicant has selected the
activities it proposes to carry out (as described under ``Application
Requirements'') and why such activities will have the greatest impact
on advancing its high-quality plan for early learning.
Costs and Benefits: We have determined that these proposed
requirements would not impose significant additional costs to States,
the eligible applicants under the RTT-ELC program, or the Federal
Government and that the potential benefits would exceed the costs. The
Departments believe States would incur minimal costs in developing
plans and budgets for implementing selected activities from their FY
2011 RTT-ELC proposals, because such planning would entail revisions to
existing plans and budgets already developed as part of the FY 2011
RTT-ELC application process.
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 requirements, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific proposed requirement 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 requirements. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person in room 3E230, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the RTT-ELC program is to
improve the quality of early learning and development and close the
achievement gap for children with high needs. This program focuses on
improving early learning and development for young children by
supporting States' efforts to increase the number and percentage of
low-income and disadvantaged children, in each age group of infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers, who are enrolled in high-quality early
learning and development programs; and designing and implementing an
integrated system of high-quality early learning and development
programs and services.
Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended by section
1832(b) of Division B of Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department
of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division F of Pub.
L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012).
Proposed Requirements
Background:
A critical focus of the Departments is supporting America's
youngest learners and helping ensure that children, especially young
children with high needs, such as those who are from low-income
families, English learners, and children with disabilities or
developmental delays, enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school and
in life. A robust body of research demonstrates that high-quality early
learning and development programs and services can improve young
children's health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes; enhance
school readiness; and help close the school readiness gap1 2
that exists between children with high needs and their peers at the
time they enter kindergarten.3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010).
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3),
579-620.
\2\ Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Arteaga, I.A., &
White, B.A.B. (2011). School-based early childhood education and
age-28 well-being: effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups.
Science, Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/06/08/science.1203618.abstract doi: 10.1126/science.1203618.
\3\ Princiotta, D., Flanagan, K. D., and Germino Hausken, E.
(2006). Fifth Grade: Findings From The Fifth-Grade Follow-up of the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99
(ECLS-K). (NCES 2006-038) U.S. Department of Education.
\4\ Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L.,
Wessel, J., & Vick, J.(2009). Disparities in Early Learning and
Development: Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study--
Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Washington, DC: Child Trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this school readiness gap, the Departments have
identified, as high priorities, strengthening the quality of early
learning and development programs and increasing access to high-quality
early learning and development programs for all children, including
those with high needs.
On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius
announced the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, a new $500
million State-level grant competition authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), as amended by section
1832(b) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011. Through the RTT-ELC program, the
[[Page 36960]]
Departments seek to help close the achievement gap between children
with high needs and their peers by supporting State efforts to build
strong systems of early learning and development that provide increased
access to high-quality programs for the children who need them most.
The FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition represented an unprecedented
opportunity for States to focus deeply on their early learning and
development systems for children from birth through age five. (See
notice inviting applications for the competition, published in the
Federal Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).) Through the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition, States were given an opportunity to build a more
unified approach to supporting young children and their families--an
approach that increases access to high-quality early learning and
development programs and services and helps ensure that children enter
kindergarten with the skills, knowledge, and dispositions toward
learning they need to be successful.
In December 2011, the Departments made awards to the nine highest-
scoring applications from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition: California,
Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio,
Rhode Island, and Washington. (Due to the limited amount of funding
available and its ranking on the slate, California received
approximately half of the funding it requested.)
On December 23, 2011, Public Law 112-74, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012, which made $550 million available for the
Race to the Top Fund, was signed into law. This legislation authorized
the Secretary of Education to make Race to the Top Fund awards on ``the
basis of previously submitted applications.'' The Department of
Education must obligate these funds by December 31, 2012.
On April 9, 2012, the Departments announced that approximately $133
million of the $550 million appropriated for the Race to the Top Fund
would be made available to the next five highest-scoring applicants
from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. These five applicants, each of
which received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points
under the competition, are Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Wisconsin. Throughout this notice, these States are referred to as
``eligible applicants'' for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program, under which
the Departments will fund down the slate of applications from the FY
2011 RTT-ELC competition. While $133 million is not sufficient to
support full implementation of the plans submitted by these States in
the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, the Secretaries believe that
supporting high-scoring applicants that did not receive funding under
the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition with FY 2012 funding will help build on
the momentum from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition and engage more
States to transform the patchwork of disconnected early childhood
programs into a coordinated and high-quality system. Therefore, we
propose to make FY 2012 funds available to the eligible applicants at
up to 50 percent of the funds each requested in its application for
funds under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. Through this notice, we
propose the requirements for implementing Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC
program, under which the Departments will fund down the slate from the
FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition.
The Department of Education may use any unused funds from Phase 2
of the RTT-ELC program to make awards in the FY 2012 district-level
Race to the Top competition, which will be announced in a separate
notice published in the Federal Register. Conversely, the Department of
Education may use any unused FY 2012 funds from the district-level Race
to the Top Fund competition to supplement the awards for Phase 2 of the
RTT-ELC program.
In this notice, we propose specific requirements that eligible
applicants would have to meet in order to apply for up to 50 percent of
the funds they requested in their FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition
applications.
The FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition identified five key reform areas
representing the foundation of an effective early learning and
development reform agenda that is focused on school readiness and
ongoing educational success. These areas, which provided a framework
for the competition's priorities, requirements, and selection criteria,
are as follows:
(A) Successful State Systems;
(B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs;
(C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children;
(D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
The first two of these reform areas, (A) and (B), are core areas of
focus for this program (hereafter ``Core Areas''), and applicants under
the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition were required to respond to all
selection criteria under these Core Areas. The reform areas in (C),
(D), and (E) are areas (hereafter ``Focused Investment Areas'') where
applicants directed targeted attention to specific activities that were
relevant to their State's context. Applicants were required to address
each Focused Investment Area but not all of the selection criteria
under them.
Proposed Requirements
The Departments propose the following requirements to implement
Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program. Except where otherwise indicated in
this notice, the priorities, requirements, and definitions in the
notice inviting applications for the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition,
published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564),
would also apply to the RTT-ELC Phase 2 application process.
I. Proposed Eligibility Requirements
Eligible applicants for the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process are those
States that applied for funding under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition
and received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points,
but that did not receive grant awards under that competition.
Therefore, only the States of Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon,
and Wisconsin are eligible to apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards.
II. Proposed Award Process
To receive a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award, an eligible applicant must
submit--
(a) An application, consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application, that--
(1) Meets the application requirements described in the Proposed
Application Requirements section of this notice; and
(2) Provides the assurances described in the Proposed Application
Assurances section of this notice; and
(b) For review and approval by both Departments, a detailed plan
and budget describing the activities selected from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application that would be implemented with Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding, in
accordance with the Budget Requirements in this notice.
Note: We encourage eligible applicants to partner with each
other and currently funded RTT-ELC grantees in carrying out specific
activities (such as validation of a State's Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System (TQRIS), implementation of longitudinal data
systems, or development of a kindergarten entry assessment). Each
eligible applicant may apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards individually
or as a member of a consortium (with other eligible applicants)
under 34 CFR 75.127-129. In any event, an eligible applicant must
propose activities for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program that are
consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
[[Page 36961]]
III. Proposed Application Requirements
We propose the following application requirements for eligible
applicants that apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards:
(a) Each eligible applicant must describe how it would implement an
organizational structure for managing the grant that is consistent with
the activities and commitments described in response to selection
criterion A(3)(a)(1) \5\ of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, and
describe how it would implement the activities described in response to
Core Area B (selection criteria one through five) of its FY 2011 RTT-
ELC application using a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award. The FY 2011 RTT-ELC Core
Area B criteria promote broad participation in the State's TQRIS across
a range of programs, active and continuous program quality improvement,
and the publication of program ratings so that families can make
informed decisions about which programs can best serve the needs of
their children. Specifically, in Core Area B of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application, each applicant had to demonstrate that it had developed
and adopted, or had a high-quality Plan to develop and adopt, a TQRIS.
In addition, each applicant must also implement the activities proposed
under Competitive Preference Priority 2, including all early learning
and development programs in the TQRIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The selection criteria from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application
can be found at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2011-412.doc (pp. 26-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) In addition to addressing the requirements in paragraph (a) of
this section, each eligible applicant must select and describe how it
will implement activities that it identified in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application in response to Focused Investment Areas C, D, or E. The
eligible applicant must select activities from two or more of the three
Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E, and the activities must be
responsive to one or more of the selection criteria under the Focused
Investment Areas chosen by the applicant. (Eligible applicants may
implement additional activities proposed under more than one selection
criterion within each Focused Investment Area.) In determining which
selection criteria to address given the amount of available funds under
Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program, each eligible applicant should give
consideration to those activities that will have the greatest impact on
improving access to high-quality early learning programs for children
with high needs.
Note: In light of the reduced funding available, applicants may
make adjustments in the scope of services provided to meet selection
criteria in Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E. For example, an
applicant may propose to serve fewer programs or regions of the
State than it proposed to serve in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
The eligible applicant must provide a detailed explanation of its
rationale for such adjustments and also must amend its targets in
Tables B(2)(c) and B(4)(c)(1-2) of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application,
as needed. Applicants should ensure that the adjustments do not
diminish the program's impact on improving access to high quality
early learning programs for children with high needs. In addition,
when the scope of work is adjusted by targeting specific regions in
the State, the activities should be consistent across regions.
(c) In addition, each eligible applicant may implement the
activities it proposed in response to the Invitational Priorities from
its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Eligible applicants that wrote to
Invitational Priority 2 are encouraged to pursue public-private
partnerships to the extent that this will augment total funds available
for carrying out the activities described in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application. Note: We encourage grantees to enter into consortia, where
relevant, in order to maximize the use of available funds. Please refer
to section (V)(B) later in this notice.
(d) We will use Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding to support only those
activities included in an eligible applicant's FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application. Therefore, an eligible applicant must not include new
activities in its Phase 2 RTT-ELC application.
(e) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include current
signatures by the eligible applicant's Governor or an authorized
representative signing on behalf of the Governor; an authorized
representative from the eligible applicant's Lead Agency; and an
authorized representative from each Participating State Agency.
(f) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include a newly signed
Memorandum of Understanding and a preliminary scope of work for each
Participating State Agency.
IV. Proposed Application Assurances
Each eligible applicant must include in its Phase 2 RTT-ELC
application the following assurances from its Governor or authorized
representative of the Governor of its State:
(a) While the State may make appropriate adjustments to the scope,
budget, timeline, and performance targets, consistent with the reduced
amount of funding that is available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award
process, the State will maintain consistency with the absolute priority
and all program and eligibility requirements of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition.
(b) The State will maintain its commitment to and investment in
high-quality, accessible early learning and development programs and
services for children with high needs, as described in Section A(1) of
its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(c) Subject to adjustments due to the reduced amount of funding
available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process, the State will
maintain its plan to establish strong participation and commitment by
Participating State Agencies and other early learning and development
stakeholders as described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application.
(d) The State will maintain its commitment to integrating and
aligning resources and policies across Participating State Agencies as
described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(e) The State will comply with all of the accountability,
transparency, and reporting requirements that applied to the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition. (See the notice inviting applications for the FY
2011 RTT-ELC competition, published in the Federal Register on August
26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).)
(f) The State will comply with the requirements of any evaluation
of the RTT-ELC program, or of specific activities it proposes to pursue
as part of the program, conducted and supported by the Departments.
V. Proposed Budget Requirements
An eligible applicant may apply for up to 50 percent of the funds
requested in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. The following budget
requirements would apply to the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process:
(a) Budget Narrative. Each eligible applicant must submit a
detailed narrative and budget, using the format and instructions
provided in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application package, which describes
the activities it has selected from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application
that it proposes to implement with a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award. This
detailed narrative must include an explanation of why the eligible
applicant has selected these activities and why the eligible applicant
believes they will have the greatest impact on advancing its high-
quality plan for early learning. The narrative must also explain where
the applicant has made adjustments (such as a
[[Page 36962]]
reduction in the number of participating programs or areas of the State
served) to ensure that the activities can be carried out successfully
with the amount of funds available. In reviewing the narrative, we may
request the applicant submit revisions to address concerns related to
feasibility or the strategic use of funds. (See the notice inviting
applications for the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, published in the
Federal Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).)
(b) Applying as a Consortium. As discussed elsewhere in this
notice, we encourage eligible applicants to form consortia with each
other and partner with currently funded RTT-ELC grantees in carrying
out specific activities (such as validation of a State's TQRIS,
implementation of longitudinal data systems, or development of a
kindergarten entry assessment). Eligible applicants may apply
individually or as members of a consortium (with other eligible
applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127-129. Each applicant must propose
activities consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Therefore,
each eligible applicant that chooses to apply as a member of a
consortium or to partner with a current RTT-ELC grantee in carrying out
project activities must include in its revised budget narrative an
explanation of how the activities to be undertaken by the consortium or
partnership are consistent with the applicant's FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application and how the consortium or partnership will help the
applicant implement its selected activities. It is important to note
that an applicant may propose some activities that it would execute
alone and others that it would execute as part of a consortium.
(c) Available Funds. The maximum amounts of funding for which each
eligible applicant may apply are shown in the following table. The
amounts in this table are based on the requirement that each eligible
applicant may apply for up to half of the amount it requested in its FY
2011 RTT-ELC application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Maximum amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado............................................ $29,925,888
Illinois............................................ 34,798,696
New Mexico.......................................... 25,000,000
Oregon.............................................. 20,508,902
Wisconsin........................................... 22,701,389
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Requirements:
We will announce the final requirements for the Phase 2 RTT-ELC
award process in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine
the final requirements after considering any comments submitted in
response to this notice and other information available to the
Departments. This notice does not preclude the Departments from
proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these requirements, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries 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 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 stated in the
Executive order.
This regulatory action would have an annual effect on the economy
of more than $100 million because the amount of government transfers
through the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process exceeds that amount.
Therefore, this proposed action is ``economically significant'' and
subject to review by OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits--both quantitative and qualitative--of
this proposed regulatory action and have determined that the benefits
would justify the costs.
The Departments have also reviewed these proposed requirements
under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms
the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account--
among other things, and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity
must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives--such as user fees
or marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed requirements only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows,
the Departments believe these proposed regulations are consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as
regulatory alternatives we considered.
[[Page 36963]]
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed requirements are needed to implement the Phase 2
RTT-ELC award process in the manner that the Departments believe will
best enable the program to achieve its objectives of creating the
conditions for effective reform in State early learning systems in
States that had high-scoring applications in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition but that did not receive funding in that competition, to
implement key elements of their comprehensive reform proposals
submitted as part of their FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition applications.
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs
and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these
proposed requirements would not impose significant additional costs to
State applicants or the Federal Government. Most of the proposed
requirements contained in this notice involve re-affirming State
commitments and plans already completed as part of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition or other Federal education programs. Similarly, other
proposed requirements, in particular those related to maintaining
conditions for reform required under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition,
would require continuation of existing commitments and investments
rather than the imposition of additional burdens and costs. The
Departments believe those States that are eligible for Phase 2 awards
would incur minimal costs in developing plans and budgets for
implementing selected activities from their FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition
proposals, because in most cases such planning would entail revisions
to existing plans and budgets already developed as part of the FY 2011
RTT-ELC application process and not the development and implementation
of entirely new plans and budgets. In all such cases, the Departments
believe that the benefits resulting from the proposed requirements for
the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process, would exceed their costs.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
An alternative to promulgation of the types of requirements
proposed in this notice would be to use FY 2012 Race to the Top funds
to make awards to the one or two highest-scoring unfunded applications
from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition and to use the remaining funds for
the Race to the Top district-level competition to be held in FY 2012.
We have concluded that approximately $400 million in available FY 2012
funds is necessary to support a meaningful district-level competition.
Moreover, the Departments believe that simply funding the one or
two highest-scoring applicants that were not selected in the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition would result in a missed opportunity to reward the
efforts of other high-scoring applicants from that competition and to
enable them to make meaningful progress on key elements of their State
early learning plans.
To assist the Departments in complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries invite comments on whether there
may be further opportunities to reduce any potential costs or increase
potential benefits resulting from these proposed requirements without
impeding the effective and efficient administration of the RTT-ELC
program.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this proposed regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate
of the Federal payments to be made to States under this program as a
result of this proposed regulatory action. Expenditures are classified
as transfers to States.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............ $132,934,875.
From Whom To Whom? Federal Government to
States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process would provide approximately $133
million in competitive grants to eligible applicants (those five
applicants that did not receive funding in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition, but which received approximately 75 percent or more of the
available points under the competition).
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretaries certify that this proposed regulatory action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed regulatory action will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities (such as subaward recipients) because
they will be able to meet the costs of compliance with this regulatory
action using the funds provided under this program.
The Secretaries invite comments from small entities as to whether
they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a significant
economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to support that
belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed requirements contain information collection
requirements. However, because the eligible applicants for Phase 2 RTT-
ELC awards are fewer than 10, these collections are not subject to
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)(i)).
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.
Assessment of Educational Impact: In accordance with section 411 of
the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the
Departments invite comment on whether these proposed requirements would
require transmission of information that any other agency or authority
of the United States gathers or makes available.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register 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
these Departments 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 this site.
You may also access documents of these Departments published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
[[Page 36964]]
through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your
search to documents published by these Departments.
Dated: June 14, 2012.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-14954 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
