24934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Notices 

performance targets included in 

grantees’ approved Race to the Top 

plans. Grantees will be required to 

report on their progress in the four core 

education reform areas and in Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics. This reporting includes 

narrative sections on progress and key 

performance indicators. As was the case 

in the completion of the Race to the Top 

applications, grantees will coordinate 

with LEAs to collect and report on 

school and district-level data elements. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before June 25, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding burden and/or the collection 

activity requirements should be 

electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or mailed to U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 

20202–4537. Copies of the proposed 

information collection request may be 

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, 

by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending 

Collections’’ link and by clicking on 

link number 04845. When you access 

the information collection, click on 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

be addressed to U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection and OMB Control Number 

when making your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that 

Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information 

and Records Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes this 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests at the beginning of 

the Departmental review of the 

information collection. The Department 

of Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: Race to the Top 

Annual Performance Report. 

OMB Control Number: 1894–0012. 

Type of Review: Reinstatement, 

without change of a previously 

approved collection. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 19. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 1,845. 

Abstract: The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act provides $4.3 billion 

for the Race to the Top Fund (referred 

to in the statute as the State Incentive 

Grant Fund). This is a competitive grant 

program. The purpose of the program is 

to encourage and reward States that are 

creating the conditions for education 

innovation and reform; achieving 

significant improvement in student 

outcomes, including making substantial 

gains in student achievement, closing 

achievement gaps, improving high 

school graduation rates, and ensuring 

student preparation for success in 

college and careers; and implementing 

ambitious plans in four core education 

reform areas: (a) Adopting 

internationally-benchmarked standards 

and assessments that prepare students 

for success in college and and the 

workplace; (b) building data systems 

that measure student success and 

inform teachers and principals in how 

they can improve their practices; (c) 

increasing teacher effectiveness and 

achieving equity in teacher distribution; 

and (d) turning around our lowestachieving schools. 

In order to fulfill our responsibilities 

for programmatic oversight and public 

reporting, the Department has 

developed a Race to the Top Annual 

Performance Report that is tied directly 

to the Race to the Top selection criteria 

and priorities previously established 

and published in the Federal Register. 

The report is grounded in the key 

performance targets included in 

grantees’ approved Race to the Top 

plans. Grantees will be required to 

report on their progress in the four core 

education reform areas and in Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics. This reporting includes 

narrative sections on progress and key 

performance indicators. As was the case 

in the completion of the Race to the Top 

applications, grantees will coordinate 

with LEAs to collect and report on 

school and district-level data elements. 

In order to robustly fulfill our 

programmatic and fiscal oversight 

responsibilities, it is essential that we 

gather this data from Race to the Top 

grantees and subgrantees. In the first 

year of the grant, the APR was collected 

through an emergency clearance 

approval. In order to allow for a 

comprehensive assessment of progress 

for the remaining grant period to both 

update the public and Congress about 

Race to the Top and pinpoint areas 

requiring technical assistance, we are 

requesting a three-year clearance with 

this form. 

Additionally, through the Department 

of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011 (FY 2011 

Appropriations Act), the Department 

made a total of $200 million in grants 

to seven additional States in Phase 3 to 

invest in a portion of their plans from 

the Phase 2 competition. The 

Department is requesting these States, 

who will complete a sub-set of the APR 

based on their approved plans, be 

included in the three-year clearance 

with this form. 

Dated: April 23, 2012. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Privacy, Information and Records 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10090 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[CFDA Number 84.133A–01] 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program—Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Project 

(DRRP)—Employment of Individuals 

With Disabilities 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority under the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this 

notice proposes a priority for a 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Project (DRRP) on Employment of 

Individuals with Disabilities. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Notices 24935 

Assistant Secretary may use this priority 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on areas of 

national need. We intend this priority to 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disability. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 5133, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

Marlene.Spencer@ed.gov. You must 

include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priority 

for Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7532 or by email: 

Marlene.Spencer@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: This 

notice of proposed priority is in concert 

with NIDRR’s currently approved LongRange Plan (Plan). The currently 

approved Plan, which was published in 

the Federal Register on February 15, 

2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on 

the Internet at the following site: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

other/2006-1/021506d.pdf. 

Through the implementation of the 

currently approved Plan, NIDRR seeks 

to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of 

disability and rehabilitation research; 

(2) foster an exchange of expertise, 

information, and training to facilitate 

the advancement of knowledge and 

understanding of the unique needs of 

traditionally underserved populations; 

(3) determine best strategies and 

programs to improve rehabilitation 

outcomes for underserved populations; 

(4) identify research gaps; (5) identify 

mechanisms of integrating research and 

practice; and (6) disseminate findings. 

This notice proposes a priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP 

competition in FY 2012 and possibly 

later years. However, nothing precludes 

NIDRR from publishing additional 

priorities, if needed. Furthermore, 

NIDRR is under no obligation to make 

an award using this priority. The 

decision to make an award will be based 

on the quality of applications received 

and available funding. 

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 priority, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific topic 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 this proposed priority. 

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 in Room 5133, 550 

12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. Assistance to 

Individuals with Disabilities in 

Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On 

request we will provide an appropriate 

accommodation or auxiliary aid to an 

individual with a disability who needs 

assistance to review the comments or 

other documents in the public 

rulemaking record for this notice. If you 

want to schedule an appointment for 

this type of accommodation or auxiliary 

aid, please contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities, to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology, that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects 

The purpose of NIDRR’s DRRPs, 

which are funded through the Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research Projects 

and Centers Program, are to improve the 

effectiveness of services authorized 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, by developing methods, 

procedures, and rehabilitation 

technologies that advance a wide range 

of independent living and employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities. DRRPs 

carry out one or more of the following 

types of activities, as specified and 

defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 

350.19: research, training, 

demonstration, development, 

dissemination, utilization, and technical 

assistance. 

An applicant for assistance under this 

program must demonstrate in its 

application how it will address, in 

whole or in part, the needs of 

individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds (34 CFR 

350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant 

may take to meet this requirement are 

found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional 

information on the DRRP program can 

be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/ 

research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 

764(a). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

Proposed Priority: This notice 

contains one proposed priority. 

DRRP on Employment of Individuals 

With Disabilities 

Background 

Despite the enactment of legislation 

and the implementation of a variety of 

policy and program efforts at the 

Federal and State levels to improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities, the employment rate 

for individuals with disabilities remains 

substantially lower than the rate for 

those without disabilities. The 

economic downturn in recent years has 

resulted in still greater workforce 

disparities. In December 2011, 17.9 

percent of persons with a disability age 

16 years and older were employed, 

compared to 63.7 percent of persons 

without a disability (U.S. Department of 

Labor, 2012). Among persons 25 to 54 

years of age during the recent recession, 

the unemployment rate of persons with 

a disability ranged from 2.0 to 2.3 times 

that of persons without a disability 

(Fogg, Harrington, McMahon, 2010). 

These differences in employment and 

unemployment rates exist across all 

socio-demographic groups. 

Additionally, the median earnings for 

persons with a disability who are 

employed are $19,500 per year as 

compared to $29,997 per year earned by 

persons without a disability (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2011). 

NIDRR has funded a wide range of 

disability research and development 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Notices 

projects on employment topics, 

including on the impact of government 

policies and programs on employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities; employer practices and 

workplace environments; individual 

characteristics that affect employment 

outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities; technology to support 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities; and vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) practice. NIDRR 

seeks to build on this research by 

supporting innovative and welldesigned research and development 

projects that fall under one or more 

general employment topic areas and that 

focus on a specific stage of research (i.e., 

exploration, intervention development, 

intervention efficacy, and scale-up 

evaluation). This priority would require 

a project to focus its research or 

development activities on a general 

employment area or areas and, to the 

extent an applicant proposes to conduct 

research activities under the priority, 

require that the applicant identify the 

stage of the proposed research in its 

application. NIDRR hopes to increase 

competition and innovation by allowing 

applicants to specify the research topics 

under the broader areas of research. 

NIDRR also hopes to improve the rigor 

of the research it funds by asking 

applicants to identify and justify the 

stage of research being proposed and the 

methods appropriate to that stage. 

Through this priority, we would fund 

projects that are designed to identify, 

develop, test, and evaluate 

interventions, programs, technologies, 

and products that increase employment 

rates, hours of paid work, earnings and 

other compensation of individuals with 

disabilities; and improve job and career 

satisfaction, or other job-related 

outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities. 

References 

Fogg, N. P., Harrington, P. E., & McMahon, 

B. T. (2011). The underemployment of 

persons with disabilities during the 

Great Recession. The Rehabilitation 

Professional, 19(1), 3–10. 

U.S. Census Bureau (2010) American 

Community Survey: Table B18140. 

Available from: http:// 

factfinder.census.gov 

U.S. Department of Labor (2012a). Economic 

News Release: Table A–6. Employment 

status of the civilian population by sex, 

age, and disability status, not seasonally 

adjusted. Retrieved from: http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

empsit.t06.htm 

U.S. Department of Labor (2012b). Economic 

News Release: Table 1. Employment 

status of the civilian noninstitutionalized 

population by disability and selected 

characteristics. Retrieved from: http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

disabl.t01.htm. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for a Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) 

on Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities. The DRRP must contribute 

to the outcomes of increased 

employment rates, hours of paid work, 

earnings and other compensation for 

individuals with disabilities as well as 

improved job and career satisfaction and 

other work-related outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(a) To contribute to these outcomes, 

the DRRP must— 

(1) Conduct research activities, 

development activities, or both, in one 

or more of the following priority areas: 

(i) The impact of government policies 

and programs on employment outcomes 

for individuals with disabilities. 

(ii) Employer practices and workplace 

environments that contribute to 

improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(iii) Preparedness of individuals with 

disabilities to participate in the current 

and future workforce. 

(iv) Technology (including the 

systems that develop, evaluate, and 

deliver the technology) that support 

improved employment outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for transition-aged youth. 

(vi) Vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

practices that result in improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

(2) If conducting research under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this priority, focus its 

research on a specific stage of research. 

For purposes of this priority, the stages 

of research are as follows: 

(i) Exploration. Exploration means the 

stage of research that generates 

hypotheses or theories by conducting 

new and refined analyses of data, 

producing observational findings, and 

creating other sources of research-based 

information. This research stage may 

include identifying or describing the 

barriers to and facilitators of improved 

outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities, as well as identifying or 

describing existing practices, programs, 

or policies that are associated with 

important aspects of the lives of 

individuals with disabilities. Results 

achieved under this stage of research 

may inform the development of 

interventions or lead to evaluations of 

interventions or policies. The results of 

the exploration stage of research may 

also be used to inform decisions or 

priorities. 

(ii) Intervention Development. 

Intervention Development means the 

stage of research that focuses on 

generating and testing interventions that 

have the potential to improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. Intervention 

development involves determining the 

active components of possible 

interventions, developing measures that 

would be required to illustrate 

outcomes, specifying target populations, 

conducting field tests, and assessing the 

feasibility of conducting a well-designed 

interventions study. Results from this 

stage of research may be used to inform 

the design of a study to test the efficacy 

of an intervention. 

(iii) Intervention Efficacy. 

Intervention efficacy means the stage of 

research during which a project 

evaluates and tests whether an 

intervention is feasible, practical, and 

has the potential to yield positive 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. Efficacy research may assess 

the strength of the relationships 

between an intervention and outcomes, 

and may identify factors or individual 

characteristics that affect the 

relationship between the intervention 

and outcomes. Efficacy research can 

inform decisions about whether there is 

sufficient evidence to support ‘‘scalingup’’ an intervention to other sites and 

contexts. This stage of research can 

include assessing the training needed 

for wide-scale implementation of the 

intervention, and approaches to 

evaluation of the intervention in real 

world applications. 

(iv) Scale-Up Evaluation. Scale-up 

evaluation means the stage of research 

during which a project analyzes 

whether an intervention is effective in 

producing improved outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities when 

implemented in a real-world setting. 

During this stage of research, a project 

tests the outcomes of an evidence-based 

intervention in different settings. It 

examines the challenges to successful 

replication of the intervention, and the 

circumstances and activities that 

contribute to successful adoption of the 

intervention in real-world settings. This 

stage of research may also include welldesigned studies of an intervention that 

has been widely adopted in practice, but 

that lacks a sufficient evidence-base to 

demonstrate its effectiveness. 

(3) Conduct knowledge translation 

activities (i.e., training, technical 

assistance, utilization, dissemination) in 

order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g., 

individuals with disabilities, employers, 

policymakers, practitioners) use of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Notices 24937 

interventions, programs, technologies, 

or products that resulted from the 

research activities, development 

activities, or both, conducted under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this priority; 

(4) Involve key stakeholder groups in 

the activities conducted under 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

priority in order to maximize the 

relevance and usability of the 

interventions, programs, technologies, 

or products to be developed or studied 

under this priority. 

(b) In its application, an applicant 

must describe how its proposed project 

will meet this priority. In particular, the 

applicant must— 

(1) Identify, in its application, the 

priority area or areas on which its 

proposed research or development 

activities will focus; and 

(2) If conducting research under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this priority, identify 

and provide a rationale for the stage of 

research being proposed and the 

research methods associated with the 

stage. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are taking this regulatory action 

only on a reasoned determination that 

its benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this proposed 

priority is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years in that similar 

projects have been completed 

successfully. This proposed priority 

would generate new knowledge through 

research and development. Another 

benefit of this proposed priority is that 

the establishment of new DRRPs would 

improve the lives of individuals with 

disabilities. The new DRRP would 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that would 

improve employment opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Notices 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

by contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. You may also 

access documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register by 

using the article search feature at: 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Dated: April 20, 2012. 

Sue Swenson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

Delegated the Authority to Perform the 

Functions and Duties of Assistant Secretary 

for Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10010 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

National Assessment Governing 

Board; Meeting 

AGENCY: National Assessment 

Governing Board, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of open and closed 

meeting sessions. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

schedule and proposed agenda for the 

upcoming meeting of the National 

Assessment Governing Board (Board) 

and also describes the specific functions 

of the Board. Notice of this meeting is 

required under Section 10(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. This 

notice is issued to provide members of 

the general public with an opportunity 

to attend and/or provide comments. 

Individuals who will need special 

accommodations in order to attend the 

meeting (e.g. interpreting services, 

assistive listening devices, materials in 

alternative format) should notify Munira 

Mwalimu at 202–357–6938 or at 

Munira.Mwalimu@ed.gov no later than 

April 27, 2012. We will attempt to meet 

requests after this date but cannot 

guarantee availability of the requested 

accommodation. The meeting site is 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

DATES: May 17–19, 2012. 

Times 

May 17 

Committee Meetings 

Assessment Development Committee 

(ADC): Closed Session: 12 p.m.–4:15 

p.m. 

Executive Committee: Open Session: 

4:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m.; Closed Session: 

5:30 p.m.–6 p.m. 

May 18 

Full Board: Open Session: 8:30 a.m.– 

9:45 a.m.; Closed Session: 12:30 p.m.–2 

p.m.; Open Session: 2:15 p.m.–4:45 p.m. 

Committee Meetings 

Assessment Development Committee 

(ADC): Closed Session: 10 a.m.–12 p.m.; 

Open Session: 12 p.m.–12:30 p.m. 

Reporting and Dissemination 

Committee (R&D): Open Session: 10 

a.m.–12:30 p.m. 

Committee on Standards, Design and 

Methodology (COSDAM): Open Session: 

10 a.m.–11:20 a.m.; Closed Session: 

11:25 a.m.–12:25 p.m.; Open Session: 

12:25 p.m.–12:30 p.m. 

May 19 

Nominations Committee: Closed 

Session: 7:30 a.m.–8:15 a.m. 

Full Board: Open Session: 8:30 a.m.– 

11:30 a.m. 

Location: Marriott Plaza San Antonio, 

555 South Alamo Street, San Antonio, 

TX 78205 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer, 

National Assessment Governing Board, 

800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 825, 

Washington, DC, 20002–4233, 

Telephone: (202) 357–6938. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Assessment Governing Board 

(Board) is established under section 412 

of the National Education Statistics Act 

of 1994, as amended. 

The Board is established to formulate 

policy guidelines for the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP). The Board’s responsibilities 

include the following: Selecting subject 

areas to be assessed, developing 

assessment frameworks and 

specifications, developing appropriate 

student achievement levels for each 

grade and subject tested, developing 

standards and procedures for interstate 

and national comparisons, developing 

guidelines for reporting and 

disseminating results, and releasing 

initial NAEP results to the public. 

On May 17, 2012, two committee 

meetings are scheduled. The 

Assessment Development Committee 

(ADC) will meet in closed session from 

12 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. to review secure 

computer-based tasks for the NAEP 

2014 Technology and Engineering 

Literacy Assessment. During the closed 

session, ADC members will be provided 

specific test materials for review which 

are not yet available for release to the 

general public. Premature disclosure of 

these secure test items and materials 

would compromise the integrity and 

substantially impede implementation of 

the NAEP assessments and is therefore 

protected by exemption 9(B) of section 

552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States 

Code. 

On May 17, 2012, the Executive 

Committee will meet in open session 

from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and 

thereafter in closed session from 5:30 

p.m. to 6 p.m. During the closed session, 

the Executive Committee will discuss a 

personnel matter. This portion of the 

meeting will be conducted in closed 

session because public discussion of 

this information would disclose 

information of a personal nature where 

disclosure would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy. As such, the discussions are 

protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of 

section 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United 

States Code. 

On May 18, 2012, the full Board will 

meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 

9:45 a.m., followed by a closed session 

from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and thereafter 

in open session from 2:15 p.m. to 4:45 

p.m. 

From 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. on May 

18, the Board will review and approve 

the May 2012 meeting agenda and 

meeting minutes from the March 2012 

Board meeting, followed by the 

Chairman’s remarks and a welcome 

from San Antonio Board member Leticia 

van de Putte and a San Antonio policy 

maker. From 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. the 

Executive Director of the Governing 

Board will provide a report to the Board, 

followed by updates from the 

Commissioner of the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) and the 

Director of the Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES). Following these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES