2282 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 

information that is not responsive to a 

particular question but may, 

nevertheless, be helpful. 

3.2 Questions Regarding the 

Prevention of Testing Irregularities. 

3.2.1 Best Practices and Policies. 

Describe the best practices and policies 

that SEAs and LEAs have implemented 

to prevent testing irregularities. What 

evidence exists that these are best 

practices? Where have these best 

practices been adopted? What are the 

general lessons learned from those 

adoptions? How might such best 

practices be effectively used in the 

future? Are there barriers to the 

adoption of these best practices at the 

SEA or LEA level? What controls are 

most effective in preventing testing 

irregularities? 

3.2.2 School Culture. What role does 

school culture play in test security? For 

example, how has professional 

development been used to train school 

officials to help prepare students and 

parents for academic testing? What are 

SEAs and LEAs doing to ensure that 

educators are prepared? Are SEAs 

providing sufficient information to 

LEAs about their expectations regarding 

the integrity of academic testing? Have 

the consequences for misconduct during 

the testing process been clearly 

communicated to school officials? 

3.2.3 Contractual Provisions. For 

those States that have assessment 

contracts, what provisions are included 

in these contracts to help prevent testing 

irregularities? What contractual 

provisions have been effective in 

preventing testing irregularities? What 

evidence exists that these provisions are 

effective? What provisions have States 

included in their quality assurance 

contracts to help analyze risks? 

3.2.4 Federal, State, and Local 

Roles. What are the most appropriate 

roles for the Department, SEAs, and 

LEAs in preventing testing 

irregularities? 

Questions Regarding the Detection of 

Testing Irregularities 

3.2.5 Detection Analyses. How are 

testing irregularities generally detected? 

What are the different types of analyses 

that can be used to detect testing 

irregularities? What are the best 

practices and policies that SEAs and 

LEAs have used to detect testing 

irregularities? What is each type of 

analysis used for? How should the 

results of these analyses be interpreted? 

Can different types of analyses be used 

in conjunction with one another or to 

complement one another? What 

evidence exists that these are best 

practices? What is the appropriate 

sequence of events when seeking to 

determine whether testing irregularities 

have occurred? Specifically, what steps 

should be taken and in what order? 

Questions Regarding the Review and 

Investigation of Alleged Testing 

Irregularities 

3.2.6 Contractual Provisions. What 

provisions have States included in their 

assessment contracts to help detect 

irregularities (e.g., provisions related to 

the use of high-quality control plans)? 

What contractual provisions have been 

most effective in detecting testing 

irregularities? 

3.2.7 Federal, State, and Local 

Roles. What are the appropriate roles for 

the Department, SEAs, and LEAs in 

responding to allegations of testing 

irregularities? Who are the parties 

involved in an investigation at the SEA 

and LEA levels? 

3.2.8 Responses to Alleged Testing 

Irregularities. If testing irregularities are 

detected, what are the best practices for 

investigating them? What forensic 

analyses should be used? What 

cooperative practices between SEAs and 

LEAs have yielded positive outcomes? 

What are barriers to investigating testing 

irregularities? 

3.2.9 Managing Wrongdoing. If 

alleged testing irregularities are a result 

of wrongdoing, under what 

circumstances is it appropriate to 

impose strict and meaningful sanctions 

against wrongdoers? Are educators 

subject to standards of professional 

conduct, laws, or regulations that 

dictate the type of sanctions that might 

be imposed on an individual who 

violates the law or compromises 

professional standards? How should 

intent of wrongdoing be determined, 

and by what entity? What can be done 

to restore the credibility of a school 

system that has been tarnished by 

alleged or actual wrongdoing? 

Questions Regarding Online and 

Computer-Based Assessments 

3.2.10 Changes in Technology. In a 

world where academic assessments are 

increasingly delivered online and by 

computer, how do responses to the 

questions listed above change when 

applied to online and computer-based 

assessments? 

3.2.11 Computer-based Assessment 

Protection. What mechanisms or 

processes exist to ensure that the results 

of computer-based assessments are 

accurate and free from tampering? What 

are the best practices and policies that 

SEAs and LEAs have implemented in 

this area? What evidence exists that 

these are best practices? What are the 

potential threats to, and weak points in, 

computer-based assessment systems? 

Where are there likely opportunities for 

tampering and testing irregularities 

within the context of computer-based 

assessments? 

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 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. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6771. 

Dated: January 11, 2012. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2012–753 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Paducah 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: On December 23, 2011, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

a notice of open meeting announcing a 

meeting on January 19, 2012, of the 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Paducah. This 

notice announces the cancellation of 

this meeting. The meeting is being 

cancelled because the board will not 

have a quorum due to scheduling 

conflicts by members. The next regular 

meeting will be held on February 16, 

2012. 

DATES: The meeting scheduled for 

January 19, 2012, announced in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 2283 

December 23, 2011, issue of the Federal 

Register (FR Doc. 2011–32913, 76 FR 

80355), is cancelled. The next regular 

meeting will be held on February 16, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated 

Federal Officer, Department of Energy 

Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 

1410, MS–103, Paducah, Kentucky 

42001; Phone: (270) 441–6825. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on January 12, 

2012. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–831 Filed 1–12–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6405–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Northern New 

Mexico 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting: 

Correction. 

SUMMARY: On December 20, 2011, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

a notice of open meeting announcing a 

meeting on January 25, 2012 of the 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Northern New 

Mexico (76 FR 78909). This document 

makes a correction to that notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Menice Santistevan, Northern New 

Mexico Citizens’ Advisory Board 

(NNMCAB), 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite 

B, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 

995–0393; Fax (505) 989–1752 or Email: 

msantistevan@doeal.gov. 

Corrections 

In the Federal Register of December 

20, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011–32535, on 

page 78909, please make the following 

correction: 

In that notice under ADDRESSES, first 

column, third paragraph, the meeting 

address has been changed. The original 

address was NNMCAB Offices, 96 Cities 

of Gold Road, Suite 3, Pojoaque, New 

Mexico 87506. The new address is 

Cities of Gold Conference Center, 10–A 

Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 

87506. The reason for this change is the 

renovations at the original location will 

not be completed by the meeting date. 

Issued at Washington, DC on January 10, 

2012. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–681 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Portsmouth 

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Environmental 

Management Site-Specific Advisory 

Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 

public notice of this meeting be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Thursday, February 2, 2012, 6 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Ohio State University, 

Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, 

Piketon, Ohio 45661. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Bradburne, Deputy Designated Federal 

Officer, Department of Energy 

Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post 

Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, 

(740) 897–3822, Joel.Bradburne@

lex.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE–EM and site management in the 

areas of environmental restoration, 

waste management and related 

activities. 

Tentative Agenda 

• Call to Order, Introductions, Review 

of Agenda 

• Approval of January Minutes 

• Deputy Designated Federal Officer’s 

Comments 

• Federal Coordinator’s Comments 

• Liaisons’ Comments 

• Presentations by Fluor-B&W: 

Æ Information Portfolio, Karen Price 

Æ Fluor-B&W Community 

Commitment Plan Update, Jerry 

Schneider 

• Administrative Issues 

• Subcommittee Updates 

• Public Comments 

• Final Comments from the Board 

• Adjourn 

Public Participation: The meeting is 

open to the public. The EM SSAB, 

Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of 

the public at its advisory committee 

meetings and will make every effort to 

accommodate persons with physical 

disabilities or special needs. If you 

require special accommodations due to 

a disability, please contact Joel 

Bradburne at least seven days in 

advance of the meeting at the phone 

number listed above. Written statements 

may be filed with the Board either 

before or after the meeting. Individuals 

who wish to make oral statements 

pertaining to agenda items should 

contact Joel Bradburne at the address or 

telephone number listed above. 

Requests must be received five days 

prior to the meeting and reasonable 

provision will be made to include the 

presentation in the agenda. The Deputy 

Designated Federal Officer is 

empowered to conduct the meeting in a 

fashion that will facilitate the orderly 

conduct of business. Individuals 

wishing to make public comments will 

be provided a maximum of five minutes 

to present their comments. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Joel Bradburne at the 

address and phone number listed above. 

Minutes will also be available at the 

following Web site: http://www.portsssab.energy.gov/. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on January 11, 

2012. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–677 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Filings Instituting Proceedings 

Docket Numbers: RP12–292–000. 

Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering 

Partners. 

Description: Dauphin Island 

Gathering Partners submits tariff filing 

per 154.204: Negotiated Rates 2012–01– 

06 to be effective 1/6/2012. 

Filed Date: 1/6/12. 

Accession Number: 20120106–5069. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12. 

Docket Numbers: RP12–293–000. 

Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline 

Company LLC. 

Description: Trailblazer Pipeline 

Company LLC submits tariff filing per 

154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing—United 

Energy to be effective 1/7/2012. 

Filed Date: 1/6/12. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES