This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

58301 

Vol. 77, No. 183 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0941; Amendment 

No. 33–33] 

RIN 2120–AF57 

Technical Amendment; Airworthiness 

Standards: Aircraft Engines; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Technical amendment; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a 

technical amendment published on July 

5, 2012 (77 FR 39623). In that technical 

amendment, the FAA clarified aircraft 

engine vibration test requirements in the 

airworthiness standards. The technical 

amendment was in response to inquiries 

from applicants requesting FAA engine 

type certifications and aftermarket 

certifications, such as supplemental 

type certificates, parts manufacturing 

approvals, and repairs. We revised the 

regulation to clarify that engine surveys 

require an engine test. Representatives 

of industry suggested that our technical 

amendment was in fact, a substantive 

change in the regulation, not a 

clarification. The FAA is correcting our 

prior action in response to that industry 

claim. This document amends the 

FAA’s regulations to reverse the changes 

to § 33.83(a) amendment 33–33 and 

restore § 33.83(a) to its previous 

amendment 33–17. 

DATES: This corrective action becomes 

effective September 20, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Dorina Mihail, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, Standards Staff, 

ANE–110, 12 New England Executive 

Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803– 

5229; (781) 238–7153; facsimile: (781) 

238–7199; email: 

dorina.mihail@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Vincent Bennett, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Regional Counsel, ANE–7, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7044; fax (781) 238–7055; 

email vincent.bennett@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 5, 2012, the FAA published 

a Technical Amendment entitled, 

‘‘Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft 

Engine’’ (77 FR 39623). In that technical 

amendment, the FAA intended to clarify 

vibration test requirements in § 33.83 of 

14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 33. 

By letter dated August 3, 2012, the 

Modification and Replacement Parts 

Association (MARPA) asserts that the 

rule appears to be a substantive change 

that should have been open to public 

comment. The MARPA further asserts 

that had the rule been open for 

comment, it and others would have 

commented that the technical 

amendment undermines the existing 

regulatory system, rather than 

improving it, and that it imposes 

unnecessary burdens on the applicant 

and the government with no 

commensurate safety benefit. We do not 

agree with MARPA’s assertion that the 

rule change was substantive. However, 

in the interest of transparency in the 

rulemaking process, we are changing the 

language of § 33.83(a) amendment 33–33 

back to the language in § 33.83(a) of the 

previous amendment 33–17. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

The Correcting Amendment 

In consideration of the following, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

corrects part 33 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44704. 

■ 2. Revise § 33.83(a) to read as follows: 

§ 33.83 Vibration test. 

(a) Each engine must undergo 

vibration surveys to establish that the 

vibration characteristics of those 

components that may be subject to 

mechanically or aerodynamically 

induced vibratory excitations are 

acceptable throughout the declared 

flight envelope. The engine surveys 

shall be based upon an appropriate 

combination of experience, analysis, 

and component test and shall address, 

as a minimum, blades, vanes, rotor 

discs, spacers, and rotor shafts. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

13, 2012. 

Lirio Liu, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23105 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 

Final Requirements—Race to the 

Top—Early Learning Challenge; Phase 

2 

AGENCY: Department of Education and 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Final requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

and the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (hereafter ‘‘the Secretaries’’) 

announce requirements for Phase 2 of 

the Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT–ELC) program. In Phase 

2, we will make awards to certain States 

that applied for, but did not receive, 

funding under the RTT–ELC 

competition held in fiscal year (FY) 

2011 (FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition). 

Specifically, we will 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58302 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 five 

eligible applicants will need to provide 

in order to receive funding under Phase 

2 of the RTT–ELC program. 

DATES: Effective Date: These 

requirements are effective October 22, 

2012. 

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 U.S. Departments of Education and 

Health and Human Services (hereafter 

‘‘the Departments’’) will implement 

Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program by 

funding down the slate from the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition. 

Specifically, the Departments will 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 establishes 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 

document, we 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 Final 

Requirements section, require each 

eligible applicant to: (1) Describe how it 

would implement the activities 

proposed in Core Area B (selection 

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 Final 

Requirements section, 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 update the information in tables 

1–13 in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application, which described 

State funding, programs, and policies 

that supported early learning at the time 

the FY 2011 application was submitted. 

Each eligible applicant must maintain 

the commitments made in section (A)(1) 

in a manner consistent with the updated 

tables. Each eligible applicant must also 

maintain commitments to engage in the 

partnerships described in its FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application in a manner 

consistent with the updated tables. 

These commitments are critical to 

building strong State systems of early 

learning and development. This 

requirement is important because the 

strength of these commitments 

influenced how reviewers scored the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC applications during the 

FY 2011 peer review process. 

The Budget Requirements, which can 

be found in section V of the Final 

Requirements section, 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 those activities would have the 

greatest impact on advancing its highquality plan for early learning. 

Costs and Benefits: We have 

determined that these requirements will 

not impose significant additional costs 

to States, the eligible applicants under 

the RTT–ELC program, or the Federal 

Government and that the potential 

benefits will exceed the costs. The 

Departments believe States will incur 

minimal costs in developing plans and 

budgets for implementing selected 

activities from their FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

proposals because such planning will 

entail only revisions to existing plans 

and budgets already developed as part 

of the FY 2011 RTT–ELC application 

process. 

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 to 

design and implement 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 (Pub. L. 111– 

5), as amended by section 1832(b) of Division 

B of Pub. L. 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) (hereafter ‘‘the Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2012’’). 

We published a notice of proposed 

requirements (NPR) for this program in 

the Federal Register on June 20, 2012 

(77 FR 36958). The NPR contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular 

requirements and assurances for Phase 2 

of the RTT–ELC program. 

There are two significant differences 

between the requirements proposed in 

the NPR and these final requirements. 

First, in this notice, the Departments 

have clarified that applicants may make 

reductions and adjustments in the 

activities in Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core 

Area B, and Competitive Preference 

Priority 2 based on the 50 percent 

reduction in available Federal funding 

for Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program. 

Second, the Departments are requiring 

applicants to explain any significant 

changes to the information provided in 

section (A)(1) that have occurred since 

submission of their FY 2011 

applications, including updates to the 

information provided in tables 1–13 in 

section (A)(1) of their FY 2011 

applications. These changes are 

described in greater detail below in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPR, twelve parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

requirements. In the following section, 

we summarize and provide responses to 

the comments we received. We group 

major issues addressed in these 

comments according to subject. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58303 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the requirements since 

publication of the NPR follows. 

Eligibility and Allocation of Funds 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

why only the five States named in the 

NPR are eligible to apply and asked 

whether other States might receive 

funds if the five eligible States do not 

apply. 

Discussion: The NPR included a 

discussion of the reasons for limiting 

eligibility to the five States named in the 

NPR. When the Departments made FY 

2011 RTT–ELC awards, we did not have 

sufficient funding to award grants to all 

high-quality applications. The 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 authorizes the 

Departments to make awards on the 

basis of previously submitted 

applications. In light of the fact that the 

amount of funds available in FY 2012 is 

inadequate to conduct a meaningful 

new competition, we have chosen to use 

the available FY 2012 funds to make 

awards to the next five highest scoring 

applications, each of which received 

approximately 75 percent or more of the 

available points under the 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. Because we are funding 

down the FY 2011 slate and only 

limited funds are available, we are not 

opening eligibility to all non-funded 

applicants. If any of the five eligible 

applicants do not apply for funds, those 

funds that remain unawarded would be 

used to support grants made under the 

FY 2012 Race to the Top District 

competition. We would not make any 

remaining FY 2012 funds available to 

other unfunded applicants from the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

establish a protocol to ensure that if any 

funds are not awarded to the eligible 

applicants, they can be recommitted to 

the other applicants. The commenters 

stated that all of the $133 million 

available for RTT–ELC in FY 2012 

should be used for ‘‘Early Learning 

Challenge purposes.’’ 

Discussion: As described previously, 

the Departments decided that if any of 

the five eligible applicants do not apply 

for funds, the funds will be used for 

awards in the FY 2012 Race to the Top 

District competition, which may 

support district-level reforms in early 

learning. Funds that are not awarded 

through RTT–ELC Phase 2 will not be 

made available to other unfunded 

applicants from the FY 2011 

competition. 

Change: None. 

Modification of Activities 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested clarification about the 

proposed requirement that Phase 2 

RTT–ELC funds not be used for new 

activities and sought clarification of the 

difference between new activities, new 

strategies, new tactics, and new goals. 

The commenters also suggested that 

reasonable modifications to proposed 

activities should be allowed due to 

activities that have occurred since States 

submitted their FY 2011 applications. 

Discussion: Applicants must select 

key activities from their FY 2011 

applications. Due to the 50 percent 

reduction in funding available under 

Phase 2 RTT–ELC, a State may adjust 

the scope of budget, timelines, or 

performance measures for those selected 

activities. In so doing, a State may, in 

fact, modify some strategies or tactics to 

complete an activity from its FY 2011 

application in order to accomplish the 

goal specified in that application. 

A State is not permitted, however, to 

use Phase 2 RTT–ELC funds for 

activities that were not included in its 

FY 2011 application because the 

applications of the five eligible States 

were reviewed, scored, and ranked 

through the Departments’ FY 2011 RTT– 

ELC peer review process. It would 

therefore be inappropriate to allow 

applicants to introduce new activities in 

place of those activities that were 

proposed in their FY 2011 applications. 

The Departments will provide 

technical assistance to applicants on 

what constitutes a ‘‘new activity’’ rather 

than an adjustment to the scope of an 

activity included in a State’s FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application. For example, 

creating an entirely new project to 

address one of the selection criteria 

would be a new activity, while a change 

in the number of regions served or 

subgrants awarded would be an 

allowable adjustment. The adjustments 

may not significantly diminish the 

program’s ability to improve 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 a State, the 

activities must be consistent across 

those regions. In making these 

adjustments, the Departments strongly 

encourage eligible applicants to 

consider how to use other appropriate 

Federal, State, private, and local 

resources in order to maximize the 

impact of the investment of RTT–ELC 

funds. If we determine that a State’s 

Phase 2 application proposes activities 

that were not included in its FY 2011 

application, those activities will not be 

funded, and we will work with the State 

to make the necessary adjustments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

clarification of whether reductions and 

adjustments in scope, budget, timelines, 

and performance targets are permitted 

for Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, 

and Competitive Preference Priority 2. 

Discussion: The intention of the 

Departments is that applicants carry out 

the activities described in Core Area 

A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, and Competitive 

Preference Priority 2. However, in light 

of the reduced funding levels, 

applicants may modify these activities 

with adjustments to their scopes, 

budgets, timelines, and performance 

measures. 

Changes: The Departments have 

clarified this in the Application 

Requirements section of this document. 

Applicants may make adjustments in 

scopes, budgets, timelines and 

performance targets for activities in Core 

Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, and 

Competitive Preference Priority 2. 

Required Core and Focused Investment 

Areas 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that it might be preferable to allow 

applicants to focus only on one of the 

Focused Investment Areas rather than 

two or more. 

Discussion: The Departments 

understand the request to narrow the 

focus areas since less funding will be 

available for each applicant but believe 

that eligible applicants will be able to 

implement important activities in at 

least two Focused Investment Areas. 

This program is designed to take a 

comprehensive approach to improving 

State systems of early learning, and all 

three Focused Investment Areas are 

important to the success of that 

approach. We are not revising the 

requirement as suggested by the 

commenter because the option to select 

two of the three Investment Areas 

provides applicants with the flexibility 

to select those activities that they can 

effectively carry out with reduced 

funds, while at the same time 

maintaining the comprehensive nature 

of the program. Applicants will have 

flexibility within the Focused 

Investment Areas they select as to 

which selection criteria they want to 

implement. Furthermore, eligible 

applicants will have flexibility 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding the amount of funds they 

choose to allocate to each Focused 

Investment Area. Applicants must 

explain in their applications the 

Focused Investment Areas and the 

selection criteria they have chosen to 

implement and how the reduced 

funding amount will affect their 

implementation. In addition, the 

Departments strongly encourage eligible 

applicants to leverage other appropriate 

Federal, State, private, and local 

resources to support their selected 

activities. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a) of the Budget Requirements section 

to reflect that the dedication of other 

sources of funding is an example of 

adjustments that would be described in 

the budget narrative. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that all applicants be required to 

address Focused Investment Area D: ‘‘A 

Great Early Childhood Education 

Workforce.’’ 

Discussion: While workforce 

development is extremely important in 

building a high-quality State early 

learning system, the Departments chose 

not to require Focused Investment Area 

D for several reasons. First, the FY 2011 

application did not give Area D a higher 

priority over Areas C and E, because the 

Departments believe that all three areas 

are important. Second, workforce issues 

are addressed under Core Area B. In 

fact, one of the reasons we are requiring 

applicants to address all of the selection 

criteria under Core Area B is that this 

section includes all the elements of a 

comprehensive early learning system, 

from standards, to workforce 

credentials, to parent engagement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

selection criterion B(4), which promotes 

access to high-quality early learning and 

development programs for children with 

high needs, should receive a high level 

of recognition and support in this 

competition. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

with the commenter that access to highquality programs for children with high 

needs is of critical importance. To that 

end, both the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application and the NPR emphasized 

improving early learning and 

development programs for children with 

high needs. Specifically, the NPR 

proposed that eligible applicants be 

required to address all of the selection 

criteria in Core Area B, which includes 

B(4), ‘‘Promoting access to high-quality 

early learning and development 

programs for children with high needs.’’ 

We retain that language in these final 

requirements and will provide eligible 

applicants with technical assistance that 

emphasizes the importance of all 

criteria within Core Area B. 

Changes: None. 

Maintenance of State Commitments 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

some flexibility in the proposed 

assurance that States maintain all of the 

commitments described in section 

(A)(1). The commenters expressed 

concern that holding States to section 

(A)(1) commitments could result in 

funds being reduced in other high-need 

areas, and requested clarification of the 

budgetary requirements of grantees with 

respect to this section. 

Discussion: Applicants were judged in 

the FY 2011 competition based on the 

commitments described in those 

applications, and we strongly encourage 

States to maintain those commitments. 

At the same time, we understand that 

this is a challenging time for many 

States due to budget reductions. For that 

reason, we have chosen to maintain 

Assurance (b) but have specified that 

the State will maintain, in a manner 

consistent with any updates to tables 1– 

13 in section A(1), 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. We have added 

language requiring each applicant to 

explain any significant changes in 

section (A)(1) that may have occurred 

since its submission of the FY 2011 

application. 

Changes: The Departments have 

added language to the Application 

Assurances section that requires each 

applicant to explain any significant 

changes to section (A)(1) that may have 

occurred since the submission of its FY 

2011 application, and to provide 

updates to tables 1–13 in section (A)(1). 

Comment: Three commenters 

inquired whether the tables in section 

(A)(1) of the FY 2011 application would 

need to be resubmitted in the Phase 2 

application. 

Discussion: The NPR was silent on 

whether the tables in section (A)(1) 

would need to be resubmitted in the 

Phase 2 RTT–ELC application. However, 

in order to ensure we have 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

information, and provide additional 

flexibility on Assurance (b), the 

Departments will need to know which 

parts of the tables in section (A)(1) have 

changed. Therefore, the Departments are 

requiring that States update and 

resubmit tables 1–5 in their Phase 2 

applications. Also, if the State has made 

any significant changes to the 

commitments, financial investments, 

numbers of children participating, 

legislation, policies, practices, or other 

key areas of the program described in 

section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application, 

it must submit an explanation of those 

changes, including updates to tables 6– 

13 from section (A)(1). 

Changes: The Departments have 

added language to the Application 

Assurances section that requires 

applicants to submit an explanation of 

any significant changes to section (A)(1) 

that have occurred in the commitments, 

financial investments, numbers of 

children participating, legislation, 

policies, practices, or other key areas 

since their submission of the FY 2011 

application, including resubmission of 

tables 1–5 and, as needed, updating 

tables 6–13. 

Additional Selection Criteria and 

Priorities 

Comment: Several commenters 

proposed adding or changing the 

selection criteria and priorities from the 

FY 2011 application. One commenter 

proposed adding a competitive 

preference priority for expanding 

programs to disadvantaged 

communities, including rural and 

isolated areas. One commenter proposed 

a new invitational priority for 

mandatory full-day kindergarten. One 

commenter proposed a selection 

criterion that focuses on the strength of 

a State’s kindergarten readiness 

assessment as an alternative for States 

that do not have a kindergarten entry 

assessment. One commenter proposed 

that a selection criterion be added that 

would allow States to demonstrate the 

effect of reforms made during the year 

between the FY 2011 competition and 

Phase 2 RTT–ELC and that would score 

States on the progress made. One 

commenter recommended that we 

change the licensing and inspection 

requirement in Competitive Preference 

Priority 2 so that instead of awarding 

points to States that implement 

licensing and inspection systems that 

cover all programs that regularly care for 

two or more unrelated children for a fee 

in a provider setting, it would instead 

state a broader goal of implementing a 

coordinated system of licensing and 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System (TQRIS) tiers, supported by 

monitoring and inspection. 

Discussion: These recommendations 

would impose new priorities or 

selection criteria that were not included 

in the FY 2011 application. The 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 specifically 

authorizes the Departments to make 

awards on the basis of previously 

submitted applications. This is the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58305 

approach we have taken because the 

funding available in FY 2012 is 

inadequate to conduct a meaningful 

new competition. Because we are 

making awards on the basis of 

previously submitted applications, we 

will not be making changes to any of the 

priorities or selection criteria from the 

FY 2011 application. 

Changes: None 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended new program 

requirements for Phase 2 RTT-ELC 

grantees. One commenter recommended 

that we require the five eligible 

applicants to serve more young children 

than the current baseline by revising 

assurance (b) to add ‘‘and increasing the 

numbers of high-need children served 

by local programs in the State during 

the grant period.’’ One commenter 

recommended that the Departments add 

an assurance requiring that no less than 

one-third of the grant funds be provided 

as subgrants to local programs to 

improve services and serve children 

with high needs. One commenter 

proposed a new requirement that 

applicants demonstrate significant LEA 

involvement in developing their 

applications. 

Discussion: These recommendations 

would impose new program 

requirements on the eligible applicants 

that were not included in the FY 2011 

application. For the reasons stated 

previously, the Departments are not 

changing any of the program 

requirements from the FY 2011 

application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that if the Departments 

were to impose a maintenance-of-effort 

requirement for these grants, they 

should use language modeled on past 

maintenance-of-effort requirements that 

have appropriate waiver provisions. 

Discussion: This program does not 

have a maintenance-of-effort 

requirement, and the Departments have 

not chosen to propose one. While there 

is no maintenance-of-effort requirement, 

funds awarded in Phase 2 RTT-ELC 

must be used to supplement, not 

supplant, any Federal State, or local 

funds for activities such as increasing 

access to and improving the quality of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs. 

Change: None. 

Supplement, Not Supplant 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that language on the supplement-notsupplant requirement from the 

Executive Summary of the FY 2011 

RTT-ELC NIA be added to the Phase 2 

RTT-ELC NIA for FY 2012. 

Discussion: The Program 

Requirements in the RTT-ELC NIA for 

FY 2011 stated that funds made 

available under an RTT-ELC grant must 

be used to supplement, not supplant, 

any Federal, State, or local funds that in 

the absence of the funds awarded under 

this grant, would be available for 

increasing access to and improving the 

quality of Early Learning and 

Development Programs. This 

requirement applies to all Phase 2 RTTELC awards. The Departments have 

included language about the RTT-ELC 

supplement-not-supplant requirement 

in the Phase 2 NIA and will include it 

in technical assistance provided to 

applicants. 

Changes: None. 

Grant Period 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

clarification on the duration and 

flexibility of the grant period. 

Discussion: Since the NPR stated that 

all requirements not otherwise specified 

were to be consistent with the FY 2011 

application, the grant period will be up 

to four years. 

Changes: None. 

Contracts and Subgrants 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on whether contracting and 

subgranting would be allowable under 

these awards. 

Discussion: The awarding of contracts 

has always been allowable under RTTELC. Initially, States were not permitted 

to subgrant funds under this program. 

However, the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 specifically 

provided that a State may make 

subgrants to public or private agencies 

and organizations under the RTT-ELC 

program. Thus, contracting and 

subgranting are allowable uses of Phase 

2 RTT-ELC funds. The Lead State 

Agency and Participating State Agencies 

may, consistent with the State’s 

approved plan, distribute funds to 

localities and other entities through 

memoranda of understanding, 

interagency agreements, contracts, other 

mechanisms authorized by State 

procurement laws, or subgrants. As 

always, a State’s laws and procedures 

govern subawards. Public Law 112–74 

does not require grantees to make 

subgrants; it simply provides grantees 

with this additional mechanism for 

distributing RTT-ELC funds, so long as 

awarding subgrants is consistent with 

State law and does not result in a 

change of the scope or objectives of the 

grant. 

Changes: None. 

Supporting Documentation 

Comment: Three commenters 

inquired whether letters of support 

included in the FY 2011 application 

would need to be resubmitted. 

Discussion: Applicants do not need to 

resubmit letters of support. 

Changes: None. 

General Comments 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Focused Investment Area D should 

comprehensively address the workforce 

pipeline and a system of supports for 

the early education workforce, 

including appropriate compensation, 

workforce recruitment, preparation, 

professional development (including 

facilitating the pursuit of further credits, 

degrees, and coursework), mentoring, 

and other technical assistance. The 

commenter also stated that Focused 

Investment Area D should foster the 

retention of educators, administrators, 

and education support professionals 

who possess postsecondary credentials 

in, and a deep understanding of, child 

development and specialized training in 

early childhood education. The 

commenter further suggested that the 

program include sufficient resources to 

allow teachers and instructional 

assistants to obtain the requisite 

credentials without compromising 

quality of education and without 

increasing costs for families. Finally, the 

commenter suggested that this criterion 

encourage the maintenance of a strong 

core licensing and monitoring system 

that ensures the health and safety of 

children in all child care settings. 

Discussion: As previously stated, the 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 specifically 

authorizes the Departments to make 

awards on the basis of previously 

submitted applications, and this is the 

approach provided for in these final 

requirements. As such, the Departments 

are not changing any of the program 

requirements, priorities, or selection 

criteria from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC 

application. However, the Departments 

note that the proposals described by this 

commenter are generally consistent with 

the requirements and definitions 

provided in Focused Investment Area D 

of the FY 2011 application. For 

example, the FY 2011 application 

included criteria that supported the 

establishment of a statewide system of 

credentials and degrees aligned with a 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework, alignment of professional 

development opportunities with that 

Framework, increasing access for 

educators to effective professional 

development, and policies and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The selection criteria from the FY 2011 RTT– 

ELC application can be found in the Notice inviting 

applications for the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, 

published in the Federal Register on August 26, 

2011 (76 FR 53564) and at http://www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/ 

2011-412.doc (pp. 26–74). 

incentives to improve retention and 

career advancement. Core Area B 

addresses the importance of a highquality plan for rating and monitoring 

early learning programs participating in 

the TQRIS. 

Changes: None. 

Final Requirements 

The Secretary announces the 

following requirements for Phase 2 of 

the RTT-ELC program. Except where 

otherwise indicated in these final 

requirements, the applicable final 

requirements and definitions of key 

terms from the notice inviting 

applications, published in the Federal 

Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 

53564), apply to the Phase 2 RTT-ELC 

application process. 

I. 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 

Application Requirements section; and 

(2) Provides the assurances described 

in the Application Assurances section; 

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 section. 

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 

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. A consortium can be formed 

only with other eligible applicants and 

requires a single application. A partnership 

can be described in the application of an 

individual State or a consortium and can 

include eligible applicants as well as 

currently-funded grantees. 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. 

II. Eligibility Requirements: Eligible 

applicants for Phase 2 RTT–ELC awards 

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. 

III. Application Requirements: Eligible 

applicants must meet the following 

requirements to receive Phase 2 RTT– 

ELC awards: 

(a) Each eligible applicant must 

describe how it would implement an 

organizational structure for managing 

the Phase 2 RTT–ELC grant that is 

consistent with the activities and 

commitments described in response to 

selection criterion A(3)(a)(1) 1 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 eligible 

applicant must also implement the 

activities it 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 must 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 Core Area A(3)(a)(1), 

Core Area B, Competitive Preference Priority 

2, and 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. The adjustments may not diminish 

the program’s impact on improving access to 

high-quality early learning programs for 

children with high needs. In addition, if the 

scope of work is adjusted by targeting 

specific regions in the State, the activities 

must be consistent across regions. In making 

these adjustments, the Departments strongly 

encourage eligible applicants to consider 

how to use other appropriate Federal, State, 

private, and local resources to support their 

selected activities. 

(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 enter into public-private 

partnerships to the extent that doing so 

would augment total funds available for 

carrying out the activities described in 

their FY 2011 RTT–ELC applications. 

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). 

(d) The Departments 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. Application Assurances: Each 

eligible applicant must include in its 

Phase 2 RTT–ELC application the 

following assurances from its Governor 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58307 

or authorized representative of the 

Governor of its State: 

(a) While the State may make 

appropriate adjustments to the scope, 

budget, timelines, 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 meet all program and eligibility 

requirements of the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition. 

(b) The State must update tables 1–5 

from section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 

application. In addition, if the State has 

made any significant changes to the 

commitments, financial investments, 

numbers of children served, legislation, 

policies, practices, or other key areas of 

the program described in section (A)(1) 

of its FY 2011 application, it must 

submit an explanation of those changes, 

including updates to tables 6–13 from 

section (A)(1) as needed. 

The State will maintain, in a manner 

consistent with its updates to tables 1– 

13, 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. Budget Requirements: An eligible 

applicant may apply for up to 50 

percent of the funds it requested in its 

FY 2011 RTT–ELC application. The 

following budget requirements 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 

reduction in the number of participating 

programs or areas of the State served, or 

the dedication of additional Federal, 

State, local, or private funds to support 

the plan) to ensure that the activities 

can be carried out successfully with the 

amount of funds available. In reviewing 

the narrative, we may request that 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 previously, we encourage 

eligible applicants to form consortia 

with each other or partner with 

currently funded FY 2011 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. A consortium can be 

formed only with other eligible 

applicants and requires a single 

application. A partnership can be 

described in the application of an 

individual State or a consortium and 

can include eligible applicants as well 

as currently-funded grantees. Each 

eligible 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 

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 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 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 will 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 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to review by OMB review under 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58308 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 regulatory action 

and have determined that the benefits 

will justify the costs. 

The Departments have also reviewed 

these 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 

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 issuing these requirements 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Departments believe these requirements 

are consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action will 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. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These 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—to 

create the conditions for effective reform 

in 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, 

so that they can 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 

requirements will not impose significant 

additional costs to State applicants or 

the Federal Government. Most of the 

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 requirements, in 

particular those related to maintaining 

conditions for reform required under the 

FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, 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 will 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 will entail only 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 

cases, the Departments believe that the 

benefits resulting from the requirements 

for the Phase 2 RTT–ELC award process 

will exceed their costs. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

An alternative to promulgation of 

these requirements would have been 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 competition to be held 

in FY 2012. We 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. 

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 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 

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 

will 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). 

Waiver of Congressional Review Act 

These requirements have been 

determined to be a major rule for 

purposes of the Congressional Review 

Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). 

Generally, under the CRA, a major rule 

takes effect 60 days after the date on 

which the rule is published in the 

Federal Register. Section 808(2) of the 

CRA, however, provides that any rule 

which an agency for good cause finds 

(and incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefore in the 

rule issued) that notice and public 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58309 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, shall take effect at such time as 

the Federal agency promulgating the 

rule determines. 

These final requirements are needed 

to implement the Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

program, authorized under Sections 

14005 and 14006, Division A, of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5), 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, which was 

signed into law on December 23, 2011. 

The Department must award funds 

under this authority to qualified 

applicants by December 31, 2012, or the 

funds will lapse. Even on an expedited 

timeline, it is impracticable for the 

Department to adhere to a 60-day 

delayed effective date for the final 

requirements and make grant awards to 

qualified applicants by the December 

31, 2012 deadline. When the 60-day 

delayed effective date is added to the 

time the Department will need to 

receive applications (approximately 45 

days), review the applications 

(approximately 21 days), and finally 

approve applications (approximately 28 

days), the Department will not be able 

to award funds authorized under the 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 to applicants 

by December 31, 2012. The Department 

has therefore determined that, pursuant 

to section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day 

delay in the effective date generally 

required for congressional review is 

impracticable, contrary to the public 

interest, and waived for good cause. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These final 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. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the 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 the 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, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

these Departments. 

Dated: September 17, 2012. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

George Sheldon, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23259 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0596; FRL–9731–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Missouri State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted September 21, 2010. 

This revision will amend the ambient 

air quality standards table to reflect 

revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), update reference 

methods associated with the revised 

NAAQS, and update the breakpoint 

values for the Air Quality Index. These 

revisions make Missouri’s rules 

consistent with Federal regulations and 

improve the clarity of the rules. EPA’s 

approval of this SIP revision is being 

done in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 19, 2012, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by October 22, 2012. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2012–0596, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: bhesania.amy@epa.gov 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy 

Bhesania, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012– 

0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means 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 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES