Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4663 

position of each person responsible for 

the denial, and the provisions for 

judicial review of that determination 

under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552(4)(B). Even if no appeal is filed from 

a denial in whole or in part of a request 

for records by the person making the 

request, the General Counsel or the 

Chairman of the Board may, without 

regard to the time limit for filing of an 

appeal, sua sponte initiate consideration 

of an adverse determination under this 

appeal procedure by written notification 

to the person making the request. In 

such event, the time limit for making 

the determination shall commence with 

the issuance of such notification. An 

adverse determination by the General 

Counsel or the Chairman of the Board, 

as the case may be, will be the final 

action of the Agency. If the requester 

wishes to seek review by a court of any 

adverse determination, the requester 

must first appeal it under this section. 

* * * * * 

Signed in Washington, DC, January 25, 

2012. 

Mark Gaston Pearce, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2059 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OS–0005] 

RIN 1894–AA02 

Final Revisions to Certain Data 

Collection and Reporting 

Requirements, Final Priority; State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program and 

Discretionary and Other Formula Grant 

Programs 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Revisions to certain data 

collection and reporting requirements, 

and final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) issues final revisions to 

certain data collection and reporting 

requirements, and a final priority, under 

the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

program. 

DATES: Effective March 1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler, State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Program, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., 

room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202– 

0008. Telephone: (202) 260–9737 or by 

email: State.Fiscal.Fund@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: 

Purpose of Program: The State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program 

provided States approximately $48.6 

billion in formula grants to help 

stabilize State and local budgets and 

minimize and avoid reductions in 

education and other essential services. 

In exchange, States committed to 

advance education reform in four key 

areas: (1) Achieving equity in the 

distribution of effective teachers; (2) 

improving the collection and use of 

data; (3) standards and assessments; and 

(4) supporting struggling schools. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), Division A, Title XIV—State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Public Law 

111–5; 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474. 

Summary of Final Revisions: In this 

notice, the Secretary (1) exempts certain 

States from collecting and reporting on 

Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) and 

Indicators (a)(3) through (a)(7); (2) 

eliminates the requirement for States to 

report data annually for Indicators (c)(1) 

through (c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6); 

(3) extends to December 31, 2013, upon 

submission of an approvable request by 

a State, the deadline for meeting the 

requirements under Indicators (b)(1) and 

(c)(12); (4) extends to December 31, 

2013, upon submission of an approvable 

request by a State, the deadline for 

collecting and publicly reporting or 

developing the capacity to collect and 

publicly report student enrollment data 

under Indicator (c)(11) for high school 

graduates who enroll in an in-state 

public institution of higher education 

(IHE); and (5) applies an alternative 

standard, upon submission of an 

approvable request by a State, by which 

a State may meet the Indicator (c)(11) 

data collection and reporting 

requirements for high school graduates 

who enroll in in-state private, out-ofstate private, or out-of-state public IHEs. 

The Secretary establishes December 31, 

2013, as the deadline by which a State 

must meet the requirements of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

In addition, the Secretary establishes 

a priority that the Department may use 

in future discretionary grant 

competitions for States that have met 

the requirements of Indicator (b)(1) on 

or before the applicable deadline. 

Further, the Secretary establishes the 

authority to extend those sanctions to 

State educational agencies (SEAs) in 

States that have received an extension of 

the deadline to December 31, 2013, for 

Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) but fail 

to meet the revised deadline or that 

have received permission to use the 

alternative standard for Indicator (c)(11) 

but fail to meet the requirements of that 

standard by the deadline. 

The Department also establishes the 

authority to take enforcement action 

against an SEA under certain 

circumstances where a State fails to 

meet the requirements of Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12). 

Background: Section 14005(d) of 

Division A of the ARRA required a State 

receiving funds under the SFSF program 

to provide assurances in four key areas 

of education reform: (1) Achieving 

equity in the distribution of effective 

teachers; (2) improving collection and 

use of data; (3) standards and 

assessments; and (4) supporting 

struggling schools. 

In a notice of final requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 12, 2009 (74 FR 58436) 

(November 2009 Notice), the 

Department established specific data 

and information requirements 

(assurance indicators and descriptors) 

that a State had to meet to demonstrate 

compliance with the statutory 

assurances. We also established specific 

requirements for the plans that a State 

had to submit as part of its application 

for the second phase of funding under 

the SFSF program. These plans describe 

the steps a State would take to collect 

and publicly report, or to develop the 

capacity to collect and publicly report, 

the required data and other information. 

As we explained in the November 

2009 Notice, these two sets of 

requirements make transparent the 

extent to which a State is implementing 

the promised reforms. Increased access 

to and focus on these data better enable 

States and other stakeholders to identify 

strengths and weaknesses in education 

systems and to determine where 

concentrated reform effort is warranted. 

We are taking the actions in this 

notice in response to the January 18, 

2011, Executive Order 13563 entitled 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ and the February 28, 2011, 

memorandum from the President to 

executive departments and agencies 

entitled ‘‘Administrative Flexibility, 

Lower Costs, and Better Results for 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments.’’ 

These documents direct each Federal 

executive department and agency to 

review periodically its existing 

significant regulations and determine 

whether any should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 

as to make the department’s or agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or 

less burdensome. These modifications 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

address concerns raised by some States 

about the time necessary to meet the 

requirements in the November 2009 

Notice. 

As a result of our regulatory review of 

the SFSF program requirements, we also 

are publishing elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register a notice of final 

requirement extending to January 31, 

2012, the deadline for States to meet the 

data collection and reporting 

requirements of the SFSF indicators. 

We note that in addition to the 

revised January 31, 2012, deadline for 

meeting the SFSF requirements, we are 

modifying certain other data collection 

and reporting requirements in this 

notice. All other SFSF requirements 

remain in effect as originally 

established. 

In addition, we note that where the 

SFSF indicators make use of 

information in ‘‘Existing Collections’’ 

(see column 4 of the table in Section I 

of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund: 

Summary of Final Requirements at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

statestabilization/summaryrequirements.doc), the modification of 

an SFSF indicator does not affect other 

Federal requirements for those 

collections that are established under 

separate legal authority. Some of the 

data that States submit through the 

Department’s EDFacts system to meet 

requirements established under other 

authorities (e.g., Title I accountability 

data) are also reported publicly by 

States to meet the requirements of 

certain SFSF indicators. Those 

requirements established by other 

authorities are not affected by the 

modification of any SFSF indicator in 

this notice. 

On September 23, 2011, we published 

a notice of proposed revisions to certain 

data collection and reporting 

requirements and proposed priority 

(NPR) in the Federal Register (76 FR 

59074). 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPR, we received 

comments from six entities. There are 

several differences between the NPR 

and these final requirements. 

In the following section, we discuss 

substantive issues under the sections of 

the requirements to which they pertain. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes, or suggested 

changes the applicable statutory 

authority does not authorize us to make. 

In addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed 

provisions or the proposed priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

Deadline for Complying With Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), AND (c)(12). 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed support for the Department’s 

proposal to extend beyond January 31, 

2012, the deadline for developing and 

implementing a statewide longitudinal 

data system (SLDS) under Indicator 

(b)(1) that includes all the 12 elements 

required under the America COMPETES 

Act. Further, five commenters 

supported the Department’s proposal to 

extend beyond January 31, 2012, the 

deadline for complying with the 

requirements of Indicator (c)(11). One of 

these commenters stated that the need 

to establish a longer time frame for full 

compliance with Indicator (c)(11) 

seemed fair as it responded to 

comments that were discussed in the 

November 2009 Notice. In addition, one 

commenter expressed concerns about 

the cost of obtaining information on 

students who attend private and out-ofstate IHEs. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the concerns expressed by 

commenters regarding the ability of 

States to fully comply with the 

requirements of Indicators (b)(1) and 

(c)(11) in a timely fashion. These 

concerns would also apply to Indicator 

(c)(12) because compliance with the 

requirements of that indicator is 

dependent upon the development and 

implementation of an SLDS. Because of 

these concerns, the Department believes 

that it is appropriate to extend the 

deadline for meeting the requirements 

of Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) to 

December 31, 2013 rather than 

December 31, 2012, as proposed in the 

NPR. An extension will be granted only 

to those States that submit an 

approvable extension request. 

Change: The Department extends to 

December 31, 2013, upon submission of 

an approvable request by a State— 

(a) The deadline for the development 

and implementation of an SLDS under 

Indicator (b)(1) that includes the 12 

elements included in the America 

COMPETES Act; 

(b) The deadline by which a State 

must collect and publicly report, or 

have the capacity to collect and publicly 

report, the required course completion 

data under Indicator (c)(12); and 

(c) The deadline by which a State 

must collect and publicly report, or 

have the capacity to collect and publicly 

report, the student enrollment data 

required under Indicator (c)(11) for high 

school graduates who attend an in-state 

public IHE. 

Under the alternative standard for 

Indicator (c)(11), the Department 

extends to December 31, 2013, the 

deadline by which a State must increase 

its current capacity to collect and 

publicly report the required student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who attend a private or an 

out-of-state public IHE. 

Process for Requesting an Extension 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department (1) create a 

streamlined and user-friendly form to 

request deadline extensions and use of 

the alternative standard; (2) approve 

extension requests for complying with 

the requirements of Indicators (b)(1), 

(c)(11), and (c)(12) before requiring a 

State to provide a revised plan for the 

applicable indicator; and (3) 

automatically grant an extension of the 

deadline for an indicator if the State has 

a later deadline for the same activity 

under another Department program. 

Discussion: The Department is 

providing a streamlined and userfriendly form for requests to extend a 

deadline or use the alternative standard. 

The Department will approve these 

requests on the basis of assurances 

provided by the Governor and the Chief 

State School Officer. The State will have 

60 days after submission of the request 

to provide the revised plan. If a State 

fails to meet the revised and approved 

State plan requirements, the Department 

will take appropriate enforcement 

actions. The Department’s program 

offices do coordinate implementation of 

program requirements under various 

statutory or regulatory authorities. 

However, many programs have specific 

requirements that differ from the 

requirements of other programs. As a 

result, the Department often establishes 

program-specific requirements and 

deadlines and will not automatically 

extend the deadline for complying with 

the SFSF indicators and descriptors on 

the basis of a later deadline for another 

program. 

Changes: None. 

Elimination of Annual Reporting 

Requirements for Certain Indicators 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the elimination of the annual reporting 

requirements for Indicators (c)(1) 

through (c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6). 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support of the 

commenter and, as stated in the NPR, 

we do not believe that it is necessary to 

have States annually collect and 

publicly report these data given the 

availability of the data from other 

sources. 

Changes: None. 

Teacher and Principal Evaluation 

Systems 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department extend beyond 

January 31, 2012, the deadline for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4665 

collecting and publicly reporting data 

related to teacher and principal 

evaluation systems. The commenter 

noted that the January 31, 2012, 

deadline is inconsistent with the 

timelines for the development and 

implementation of teacher and principal 

evaluation systems outlined in the 

September 23, 2011, ESEA Flexibility 

guidance. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that a State with an approved ESEA 

Flexibility request should not have to 

report data and information on the 

current teacher and principal evaluation 

systems of its local educational agencies 

(LEAs) by the January 31, 2012, SFSF 

deadline because that State will have 

committed to developing, adopting, 

piloting, and implementing rigorous 

teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems. The deadline for 

implementing rigorous teacher and 

principal evaluation systems under the 

ESEA Flexibility extends beyond the 

January 31, 2012, SFSF deadline. 

Therefore, the Department is 

eliminating the requirement for a State 

to collect and publicly report data under 

SFSF Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) and 

Indicators (a)(3) through (a)(7) if that 

State has an approved ESEA Flexibility 

request. 

Changes: We have modified the final 

requirements to provide that the 

collection and public reporting 

requirements under SFSF Descriptors 

(a)(1) and (a)(2) and Indicators (a)(3) 

through (a)(7) do not apply to a State 

that has an approved ESEA Flexibility 

request. Statewide Longitudinal Data 

System (Indicator (b)(1)) 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether development and 

implementation of an SLDS may be 

predicated on the State’s receiving an 

award under the Statewide Longitudinal 

Data Systems grant. 

Discussion: ARRA requires all States, 

as a condition of receiving funds under 

the SFSF program, to develop and 

implement an SLDS that includes all 12 

elements required under the America 

COMPETES Act. In its application for 

SFSF funding, each State assured that it 

would meet this requirement by the 

established deadline. Thus, a State must 

develop and implement such a system 

whether or not it receives an SLDS 

grant. A State could have used, among 

other funds, SFSF Government Services 

funds to meet this requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department be flexible in 

determining whether a State has 

developed and implemented an SLDS 

that includes the 12 elements and that 

the Department share with States any 

expectations that it has for those 

elements. 

Discussion: The Department 

understands that individual States’ 

longitudinal data systems may vary and 

still meet the requirements of the 

America COMPETES Act. In addition, 

the Department acknowledges that State 

requirements and processes may affect 

the manner in which a State complies 

with ARRA’s requirements. The 

Department will consider these factors 

when considering a State’s compliance 

with the requirements of Indicator 

(b)(1). The Department intends to work 

collaboratively with States while 

reviewing State compliance with SFSF 

requirements, as it has done during the 

initial SFSF monitoring reviews. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require a State to 

provide, in its request for a further 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(b)(1), a description of the challenges 

that cause the need for the extension. 

Discussion: During the Department’s 

monitoring of State implementation of 

the SFSF program, a number of States 

indicated to us that competing 

challenges and diminished capacity 

have made it difficult for them to meet 

the previously established deadline for 

some of the more challenging indicators. 

In recognition of this, the Department 

has extended the deadline for meeting 

the requirements of all indicators from 

September 30, 2011, to January 31, 

2012, and has established a process for 

States to request a further extension to 

December 31, 2013, of the deadline for 

the more challenging indicators (b)(1), 

(c)(11), and (c)(12). We believe that any 

benefits that might be derived from 

requiring a justification for this 

extension would not outweigh the 

additional burden placed on States to do 

so. 

Changes: None. Postsecondary 

Student Enrollment Data (Indicator 

(c)(11)). 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the expense associated 

with a State having to enter into 

multiple data-sharing agreements with 

IHEs to collect postsecondary student 

enrollment data. The commenter 

recommended that the Department 

consider extending its role to that of a 

broker of data-sharing agreements 

between public higher education 

consortia and other entities such as 

third-party companies and States. 

Alternatively, the commenter 

recommended that the Department 

eliminate the requirement that States 

collect enrollment data on high school 

graduates who attend private or out-ofstate IHEs. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that because differences in State 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

could affect the nature and scope of 

data-sharing agreements between States 

and IHEs, it is appropriate that 

decisions regarding these matters be 

addressed at the State rather than the 

Federal level. The Department 

acknowledges that collecting enrollment 

data on high school graduates who 

attend private and out-of-state IHEs can 

be challenging and, therefore, is 

providing States with an alternative 

standard for meeting the requirements 

of Indicator (c)(11) for such students. 

However, we are not eliminating this 

data collection requirement because we 

believe that these data, together with the 

course completion data under Indicator 

(c)(12), provide stakeholders with 

critical information on the effectiveness 

of secondary education across States. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify whether the 

alternative standard for collecting and 

publicly reporting data under Indicator 

(c)(11) applies to in-state and out-ofstate private IHEs and out-of-state 

public IHEs. The same commenter 

inquired whether a State could propose 

an alternative standard or whether a 

State would only be permitted to use the 

standard established by the Department. 

Discussion: The alternative standard, 

which was defined in the NPR, applies 

to in-state private IHEs, out-of-state 

private IHEs, and out-of-state public 

IHEs. To help ensure that all States are 

developing the capacity to collect and 

publicly report similar data, the 

Department has established an 

alternative standard that will be applied 

across all States. Thus a State may not 

propose its own alternative standard for 

complying with the requirements of 

Indicator (c)(11). 

Changes: The Department has 

modified the alternative standard 

language to expressly state that the State 

must increase its capacity to collect and 

publicly report student enrollment data 

on high school graduates who attend instate private IHEs, out-of-state private 

IHEs, and out-of-state public IHEs. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on the requirements for the 

data analysis that a State must conduct 

regarding current capacity for reporting 

on students enrolled in private or outof-state public IHEs in order to receive 

approval to use the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. 

Discussion: In demonstrating that it 

has increased its capacity to collect and 

publicly report on student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

enroll in private or out-of-state IHEs, a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4666 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

State could, among other things, enter 

into data reciprocity agreements with 

contiguous States or States with which 

it has tuition reciprocity agreements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the relevance of the information that a 

State seeking to use the alternative 

standard would have to submit by 

December 31, 2012, to demonstrate that 

it had increased its capacity to report on 

the enrollment of high school graduates 

in private and out-of-state IHEs. That 

commenter also questioned the need to 

impose additional burden on States 

before providing additional flexibility 

and the Department’s authority to 

collect the data under the alternative 

standard. The commenter recommended 

that the Department further extend the 

January 31, 2012, deadline by which 

States must report student enrollment 

data under Indicator (c)(11) without 

submitting additional information. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that whether a State funds or enters into 

a data-sharing agreement with a private 

or out-of-state public IHE is relevant. A 

State is more likely to fund or enter into 

data-sharing agreements with those IHEs 

that enroll relatively large numbers of 

that State’s residents. Further, the 

Department believes that the burden of 

meeting the requirements under the 

alternative standard will be minimal. 

The Department has the authority to 

impose reasonable conditions on States 

in exchange for providing them with 

additional flexibility in meeting 

programmatic requirements. Because in 

certain instances the deadline for States 

to comply with the requirements of 

Indicator (c)(11) may be extended 27 

months beyond the initial September 

30, 2011, deadline, the Department 

believes that it is essential to collect the 

additional information required under 

the extension request. Use of the 

alternative standard is voluntary. Only 

if a State chooses to take advantage of 

the additional flexibility afforded under 

the alternative standard does it have to 

provide this information. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require States requesting authority to 

use the Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard to indicate in their requests 

whether they have regulatory or other 

authority over in-state private IHEs. 

Discussion: Under the requirements 

for requesting use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) alternative standard, States must 

indicate for each in-state private IHE 

whether that IHE receives funding from 

the State. The Department believes this 

information, together with information 

on whether the State has a data-sharing 

agreement with these IHEs, provides 

sufficient indication of whether a State 

has authority over in-state private IHEs. 

Changes: None 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require States to 

provide the percentage of their high 

school graduates who enroll in an instate IHE to ‘‘help provide transparency 

around the extent of the challenge States 

face in tracking their students out-ofstate.’’ 

Discussion: Under Indicator (c)(11), a 

State must demonstrate that it has the 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

student enrollment data for high school 

graduates who enroll in in-state private, 

out-of-state private, and out-of-state 

public IHEs; however, a State is not 

required to actually collect and publicly 

report those data. Thus, it would impose 

a burdensome new requirement on 

States to require them to report by 

December 31, 2013, on the percentage of 

students who enroll in in-state IHEs. 

Changes: None. 

Postsecondary Course Completion Data 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify for Indicator 

(c)(12) the following: (1) The categories 

of students for which a State should 

provide course completion data (degreeseeking or all students enrolled for 

credit; part-time and full-time students; 

students who remain enrolled in the 

same public IHE; and students who 

transfer to another public IHE); and (2) 

the starting point for calculating credits 

earned within ‘‘two years of 

enrollment’’ in Indicator (c)(12). 

Discussion: States must have the 

capacity to report course completion 

data for those high school graduates 

who enroll for credit in a public IHE on 

a full-time or part-time basis within 16 

months of their high school graduation. 

In determining whether a student has 

completed one year’s worth of college 

credit applicable to a degree, as defined 

by the IHE, within two years of 

enrollment in an in-state public IHE, the 

State should consider the credits that 

the student earned at any in-state public 

IHE within two years of the date that the 

student initially enrolled in an in-state 

public IHE (as long as that initial 

enrollment was within 16 months of the 

student’s high school graduation). 

Changes: None. 

Plan Requirements 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to clarify whether a 

Governor had to sign the revised plans 

that a State must submit to receive a 

further extension of the deadline for an 

indicator. 

Discussion: In the request for an 

extension, the Governor and Chief State 

School Officer must sign an assurance 

that the State will submit a revised plan 

for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12), as 

applicable. The Governor and Chief are 

not required to sign the plan itself. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter inquired 

whether a State may use a plan adopted 

for other programs to meet the revised 

plan requirement for Indicators (b)(1), 

(c)(11), or (c)(12), as applicable. 

Discussion: A State may use a plan 

adopted for another program so long as 

that plan meets the requirements 

established in this notice, including the 

requirement that the State meet the 

December 31, 2013, deadline. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department make publicly 

available any revised plans submitted 

for Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12). 

Discussion: The Department will 

make the revised plans available on its 

Web site and encourages States to make 

them available on their Web sites as 

well. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

the Department provide in future grant 

competitions a priority not only for 

States that meet the requirements of 

Indicator (b)(1) but also for States that 

meet the requirements of Indicators 

(c)(11) and (c)(12) by the applicable 

deadline. 

Discussion: Although the Department 

recognizes the importance of a State 

being able to collect and publicly report 

the data required under Indicators 

(c)(11) and (c)(12), it wants to encourage 

States to focus on developing and 

implementing an SLDS that includes all 

of the elements required under the 

America COMPETES Act and, as a 

result, meets all of the requirements of 

Indicator (b)(1). The Department, 

therefore, is giving priority to those 

States that develop and implement an 

SLDS in a timely manner. We also note 

that if a State has developed and is 

implementing an SLDS that meets the 

statutory requirements, this will enable 

the State to comply with the 

requirements of Indicators (c)(11) and 

(c)(12). 

Changes: None. 

Revisions to Reporting Requirements: 

Exemption From Reporting 

Requirements for Descriptors (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) and Indicators (a)(3) Through 

(a)(7) 

A State that has an approved ESEA 

Flexibility request is exempt from the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4667 

collection and public reporting 

requirements under SFSF Descriptors 

(a)(1) and (a)(2) and Indicators (a)(3) 

through (a)(7). 

Elimination of Annual Reporting 

Requirements for Indicators (c)(1) 

Through (c)(9) and (d)(1) Through (d)(6) 

The Department requires each State to 

collect and publicly report, at least 

once, the data and other information 

required by Indicators (c)(1) through 

(c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6). Any 

State that has already collected and 

publicly reported these data is not 

required to take any additional action 

for these indicators. Any State that has 

not already provided data under these 

indicators must do so by the January 31, 

2012, deadline. 

Extension of Deadline for Indicators 

(b)(1) and (c)(12) 

The Department extends to December 

31, 2013, upon submission of an 

approvable request by a State, the 

deadline for the development and 

implementation of an SLDS under 

Indicator (b)(1) that includes the 12 

elements included in the America 

COMPETES Act. The Department also 

extends to December 31, 2013, upon 

submission of an approvable request by 

a State, the deadline by which a State 

must collect and publicly report, or 

have the capacity to collect and publicly 

report, the required course completion 

data under Indicator (c)(12). 

An extension request must provide 

the specific information described 

under the heading Requirements for 

Requests for Extensions to December 31, 

2013, of Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), 

(c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) Alternative Standard. 

Revisions to Requirements Under 

Indicator (c)(11) 

The Department extends to December 

31, 2013, upon submission of an 

approvable request by a State, the 

deadline by which a State must collect 

and publicly report, or have the capacity 

to collect and publicly report, the 

student enrollment data required under 

Indicator (c)(11) for high school 

graduates who attend an in-state public 

IHE. 

An extension request must provide 

the specific information under the 

heading Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions to December 31, 2013, of 

Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or Use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

Alternative Standard. 

The Department also establishes an 

alternative standard by which a State 

may meet the Indicator (c)(11) data 

collection and reporting requirements 

with respect to high school graduates 

who enroll in in-state private, out-ofstate private, or out-of-state public IHEs. 

Under the alternative standard, a State 

must increase, by December 31, 2013, its 

current capacity to collect and publicly 

report the required student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

attend an in-state private IHE, an out-ofstate private IHE, or an out-of-state 

public IHE. A State will not be required 

to be fully capable of collecting and 

reporting these data by December 31, 

2013. 

For the purposes of the alternative 

standard, a State will be considered to 

be making acceptable progress in 

increasing its capacity to collect and 

publicly report student enrollment data 

for high school graduates who enroll in 

in-state private IHEs, out-of-state private 

IHEs, or out-of-state public IHEs through 

such activities as: (1) Entering into data 

reciprocity agreements with private instate IHEs that receive any State funds, 

including those for student financial 

aid, research, or any other activities; (2) 

entering into data reciprocity 

agreements with private in-state IHEs 

over which the State exercises 

significant oversight, such as serving as 

an accrediting body; (3) entering into 

data reciprocity agreements with 

geographically contiguous States or 

States with which it has tuition 

reciprocity agreements; or (4) 

conducting a data analysis to determine 

the out-of-state IHEs where large 

numbers of the State’s high school 

graduates enroll. 

States that use the alternative 

standard for Indicator (c)(11) are 

required to publicly report, by 

December 31, 2013, the following— 

(1) For each in-state private IHE— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; 

(b) Whether the State has a datasharing agreement in place with the IHE 

and, if so, whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates; and 

(2) For each out-of-state private or 

out-of-state public IHE with which the 

State has a data-sharing agreement— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; and 

(b) Whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates. 

An extension request must include 

the specific information described 

under the heading Requirements for 

Requests for Extensions to December 31, 

2013, of Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), 

(c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) Alternative Standard. 

Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions to December 31, 2013, of 

Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or Use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

Alternative Standard 

Any request for an extension to 

December 31, 2013, of the deadline for 

Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12), as 

well as any request to use the alternative 

standard for Indicator (c)(11), must be 

submitted and signed by both the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer. Further, an extension request or 

a request to use the alternative standard 

must be submitted by February 17, 

2012, unless the Department permits a 

State to submit a request at a later date. 

The additional requirements for these 

requests are as follows: 

A. Indicator (b)(1) Extension Requests 

To receive an extension of the 

deadline for developing and 

implementing an SLDS that includes the 

12 elements required by the America 

COMPETES Act under Indicator (b)(1), 

a State must provide the following 

information: 

(1) An identification of the elements 

in the America COMPETES Act that the 

State has implemented to date as part of 

its SLDS. 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i) Incorporate the remaining elements 

into its SLDS by the December 31, 2013, 

deadline; and 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for incorporating those elements by 

the deadline. 

B. Indicator (c)(11) Extension Requests 

To receive an extension of the 

deadline for collecting and publicly 

reporting under Indicator (c)(11) student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who enroll in an in-state 

public IHE, a State must provide the 

following information: 

(1) A description of the State’s current 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

such student enrollment data. 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i)(A) Collect and publicly report by 

December 31, 2013, student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

attend an in-state public IHE; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report those data by 

December 31, 2013; and 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for how the State will— 

(A) Collect and publicly report the 

data by December 31, 2013; or 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4668 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report those data by 

December 31, 2013. 

C. Indicator (c)(12) Extension Requests 

A State must provide the following 

information when requesting an 

extension of the deadline for collecting 

and publicly reporting under Indicator 

(c)(12) course completion data for high 

school graduates who enroll in an instate public IHE: 

(1) A description of the State’s current 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

such course completion data. 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i)(A) Collect and publicly report, by 

December 31, 2013, course completion 

data required Indicator (c)(12) for high 

school graduates who attend an in-state 

public IHE; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report, by December 31, 

2013, such data; and 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for how the State will— 

(A) Collect and publicly report the 

data by December 31, 2012; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report such data by 

December 31, 2013. 

D. Indicator (c)(11) Alternative Standard 

Requests 

A State must provide the following 

information when requesting 

permission to use the alternative 

standard to satisfy the Indicator (c)(11) 

requirements to collect and publicly 

report student enrollment data for high 

school graduates who enroll in private 

or out-of-state public IHEs: 

(1) A description of the State’s current 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

such student enrollment data. 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i)(A) Collect and publicly report, by 

December 31, 2013, student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

enroll in in-state private, out-of-state 

private, or out-of-state public IHEs; or 

(B) Increase its current capacity to 

collect and publicly report such data by 

December 31, 2013, and, by that date, 

publicly report, the following— 

(1) For each in-state private IHE— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; 

(b) Whether the State has a datasharing agreement in place with the IHE 

and, if so, whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates; and 

(2) For each out-of-state private or 

out-of-state public IHE with which the 

State has a data-sharing agreement, 

individually or through a State agency 

or consortium— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; and 

(b) Whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates; 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for how the State will— 

(A) Collect and publicly report the 

data by December 31, 2012; or 

(B) Increase its current capacity to 

collect and report those data by 

December 31, 2013. 

Requirements for Revised Plans for 

Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) 

The revised plans for Indicator (b)(1), 

(c)(11), or (c)(12) must include the 

following information: 

(a) A detailed description of the steps 

that the State will take to ensure that the 

requirements of the indicator will be 

met by December 31, 2013, including a 

reasonable timeline for those actions. 

(b) Identification of the agency or 

agencies in the State responsible for the 

development and implementation of the 

revised plan. 

(c) An overall budget, including the 

funding sources, that is sufficient to 

support the development and 

implementation of the revised plan. 

Final Priority: 

This notice contains one priority. 

Priority—Developing and Implementing 

a Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

That Includes the 12 Required Elements 

Priority: The Secretary gives priority 

to a State that has met the requirements 

of SFSF Indicator (b)(1) on or before the 

applicable deadline. 

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)). 

Authority To Take Enforcement Action 

Against SEAs 

If a State receives an extension of a 

deadline to December 31, 2013, or the 

authority to use the alternative standard 

for Indicator (c)(11) but fails to meet the 

extended deadline or alternative 

standard, the Department may take 

enforcement actions against the SEA, 

including designation as high risk. In 

such instances, the Department may 

also elect not to award funds in a future 

discretionary grant competition to the 

SEA. 

The Department will take into 

account the specific circumstances of 

the grantee and the severity of the noncompliance. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use the priority proposed in this notice, 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. 

It has been determined that this 

regulatory action is a significant 

regulatory action subject to review by 

OMB under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4669 

1As discussed elsewhere in this notice, the 

regulatory review was conducted in response to the 

January 18, 2011 Executive Order 13563 entitled 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ and 

the February 28, 2011 Memorandum from the 

President to executive departments and agencies 

entitled ‘‘Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, 

and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments.’’ 

2We have not provided estimates of potential cost 

savings in this notice because we cannot reasonably 

estimate the amount of funds States have already 

spent to meet the applicable SFSF requirements. 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives 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 final revisions 

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 

Department believes that these final 

revisions 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 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. In this 

regulatory impact analysis, we discuss 

the need for regulatory action, the 

regulatory alternatives we considered, 

and the potential costs and benefits of 

the action. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action: 

The revisions in this notice are the 

result of a regulatory review 1 of the 

SFSF requirements established in the 

November 2009 Notice and also a 

response to concerns raised by States 

regarding their capacity to implement 

those requirements fully. The revisions 

eliminate requirements that have been 

identified through the regulatory review 

as overly burdensome or unnecessary 

for the achievement of the intended 

purposes of the SFSF program. The 

revisions also modify requirements that 

have been identified by certain States as 

not feasible to meet by the currently 

established deadline, by extending the 

deadline for establishing compliance or 

providing an alternative compliance 

standard for States that seek that 

flexibility. The Secretary believes that 

these revisions are needed in order for 

the Department to administer the SFSF 

program in a manner that enables States 

to provide sufficient transparency on 

the extent to which they are 

implementing education reform actions 

consistent with the assurances provided 

in their SFSF applications while 

affording them an appropriate amount 

of time and flexibility to implement 

those actions. The Secretary further 

believes that this notice’s requirements 

for requesting an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or using the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard, as well as the 

requirements for revising plans for those 

indicators, are necessary to ensure that 

States’ actions are consistent with the 

requirements for those indicators. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered: 

An alternative to promulgation of the 

revisions in this notice would be to take 

no regulatory action and, instead, take 

enforcement action, such as recovering 

or withholding Department funds or 

establishing compliance agreements, 

against States that fail to comply with 

the relevant SFSF requirements 

established in the November 2009 

Notice. In general, the Secretary believes 

that the latter approach would unfairly 

punish States that the Department 

believes, based on available information 

on implementation of SFSF plans, are 

making a good-faith effort to fully 

develop their statewide longitudinal 

data systems and their capacity to 

collect and report data on student 

postsecondary enrollment and 

persistence, but need more time to 

comply with the SFSF requirements. 

That said, the Secretary believes that 

States must fully develop statewide 

longitudinal data systems and may 

place on high-risk status those States 

that fail to comply with the 

requirements of Indicator (b)(1) by the 

current or (if approved for the State) 

extended deadline. 

With respect to Indicator (c)(11), the 

Department considered proposing only 

an extension of the deadline for 

collecting and reporting student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who attend IHEs, but 

concluded that extending the deadline 

for the public, in-state IHEs and 

providing additional flexibility with the 

alternative standard for collecting and 

publicly reporting student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

attend private and out-of-state public 

IHEs better addresses the capacity 

concerns raised by States. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits: 

Revisions to SFSF Indicator 

Requirements: 

In the November 2009 Notice, the 

Department provided detailed estimates 

of the costs to States, LEAs, and IHEs of 

complying with the SFSF requirements. 

We have assessed the potential costs 

and benefits of the revisions to those 

requirements in this notice and 

determined that they impose no net 

additional costs to States, LEAs, or IHEs. 

On the contrary, the revisions will 

produce potential net cost savings.2 For 

instance, the exemption for certain 

States from the reporting requirements 

under Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) and 

Indicators (a)(3) through (a)(7) and the 

elimination of the annual reporting 

requirements for Indicators (c)(1) 

through (c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6) 

confer savings by reducing collection 

and reporting burden on States and 

LEAs. Although it confers some new 

cost (as discussed in more detail later in 

this section), the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard confers net savings 

to States using the standard (and to 

affected LEAs and IHEs) by no longer 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4670 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3A State requesting both an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (c)(11) (as it applies to data 

on student enrollment in in-state public IHEs) and 

use of the alternative standard for that indicator (as 

it applies to data on student enrollment in private 

and out-of-state public IHEs) could address both of 

these requests in a single plan revision for the 

indicator. Consequently, the total number of 

completed plan revisions will almost certainly be 

lower than this estimate. 

requiring that those States, at a 

minimum, fully develop the capacity to 

collect and report, by September 30, 

2011, enrollment data for high school 

graduates who enroll in private or outof-state public IHEs. The extensions of 

the compliance deadlines for Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) will not add to 

the costs of complying with the 

associated requirements and might 

result in marginal savings (calculated on 

a present-value basis) as States will be 

able to spread the compliance costs over 

a longer period of time. 

Apart from potential cost savings, the 

benefits of the revisions are, as 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, 

simplified and more streamlined SFSF 

requirements that still provide the 

Department and the public with useful 

information on whether States are 

implementing education reforms that 

are consistent with the statutorily 

required assurances. 

States using the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard will incur minimal 

new costs. Under the standard, a State 

must publicly report, by December 31, 

2013, information on the extent to 

which it has data-sharing agreements 

with private and out-of-state public 

IHEs that enable the State to track its 

recent high school graduates and 

demonstrate certain concrete steps it has 

taken to increase its capacity to track its 

high school graduates who enrolled in 

private and out-of-state public IHEs. We 

estimate that a State will need, on 

average, 40 hours to collect and report 

this information. At $30 per hour, the 

average cost of doing so is an estimated 

$1,200. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 43 States will 

request use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. The total estimated 

cost to States for complying with the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard 

reporting requirements is accordingly 

$51,600 ($1,200 times 43 States). 

Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions of Deadlines for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) Alternative Standard, 

and Requirements for Revised Plans for 

Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12): 

The costs for complying with these 

requirements will, in general, be 

minimal. Because States that do not 

meet the requirements associated with 

an SFSF indicator or descriptor were 

already required to submit a plan for 

achieving compliance that includes 

progress tracking and providing regular 

public progress reports, we do not 

believe that any new effort will be 

needed in order for a State to determine 

whether to request an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. 

In requesting a deadline extension or 

use of the alternative standard, a State 

must provide a description of its current 

capacity with respect to the applicable 

indicator and a signed assurance that it 

will comply with the revised 

requirements for the indicator and will 

submit its plan for doing so to the 

Department within 60 days of the 

request. The level of effort needed to 

meet these requirements is minimal. We 

estimate that a State will need, on 

average, eight hours to complete such a 

request. At $30 per hour, the average 

cost of completing a request is an 

estimated $240. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 40 States will 

request an extension of the deadline for 

Indicator (b)(1), 43 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(11), 47 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(12), and 43 States will request use of 

the Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard. In total, States will complete 

an estimated 173 requests. At $240 per 

request, the total estimated cost to States 

for complying with the requirements for 

requests is $41,520 ($240 times 173 

requests). 

A State requesting a deadline 

extension or the use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) alternative standard must submit 

to the Department, within 60 days, a 

revised plan with respect to the 

applicable indicator that includes the 

specific steps the State will take to meet 

the revised requirements for the 

indicator, the budget for developing and 

implementing the revised plan, and the 

responsible agency or agencies. The cost 

of meeting these plan revision 

requirements should also be minimal. 

We estimate that a State will need, on 

average, eight hours to complete a plan 

revision consistent with the 

requirements. At $30 per hour, the 

average cost of completing a plan 

revision is an estimated $240. 

As discussed above, States will 

complete an estimated 173 total requests 

for deadline extensions or for use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

Accordingly, we estimate that States 

will complete, at most, 173 plan 

revisions.3 At $240 per revision, the 

total estimated cost to States for 

complying with the plan revision 

requirements is $41,520 ($240 per 

revision times 173 requests). 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with the requirements for requests and 

for plan revisions is accordingly 

$83,040. 

The November 2009 Notice detailed 

the cost of collecting and reporting the 

information and data associated with 

Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) on 

an annual basis. We expect that the cost 

of meeting these requirements will be 

reduced because most States have 

completed a substantial amount of the 

work related to collecting and reporting 

the required information. However, 

States requesting an extension of 

Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) will 

need to report the information and data 

for an additional year. We discuss the 

costs associated with reporting these 

indicators for an additional year below. 

We estimate that, on average, a State 

will need one hour to collect and report 

the information associated with 

Indicator (b)(1). This is a one-hour 

reduction from the estimate in the 

November 2009 Notice because States 

have indicated that, on average, they 

have completed 50 percent of the work 

associated with collecting and reporting 

this information. Based on information 

available from States on implementation 

of their SFSF plans, we expect that 40 

States will need to collect and report 

this information. At $30 per hour, the 

average cost for collecting and reporting 

this information is $30. The total 

estimated cost for complying with the 

Indicator (b)(1) reporting requirements 

is $1,200 ($30 per hour times 40 States). 

As 9 States have already met the 

requirement for Indicator (c)(11), we 

expect that 43 States will need to collect 

and report the information associated 

with it, or provide evidence that they 

have developed the capacity to do so, 

for students who attend in-state, public 

IHEs. We estimate that, on average, a 

State will need 40 hours to meet this 

requirement. This is a reduction from 

the average hours per response in the 

November 2009 Notice because this 

estimate includes reporting only on 

students who attend in-state, public 

IHEs rather than all students enrolled in 

an IHE. The remaining students will be 

covered under the (c)(11) alternative 

standard. At $30 per hour, we estimate 

that the average cost of meeting this 

requirement is $1,200. The total 

estimated cost for States to comply with 

the requirements for Indicator (c)(11) is 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4671 

4According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

2009, 2,240,414 first-time freshmen enrolled in 

public, degree-granting IHEs in fall 2008, which 

represented 74 percent of all first-time freshmen. 

See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/ 

dt09_199.asp. Also in fall 2008, 2,109,931 freshmen 

who graduated from high school within the last 12 

months attended degree-granting IHEs in their 

home State, which represented 81 percent of all 

freshmen. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 

d09/tables/dt09_223.asp. 1. An estimate of the 

number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public, 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be 

derived two ways. Applying the percentage of firsttime freshmen attending public degree-granting 

IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending 

an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 

1,508,484, and applying the percentage of first-time 

freshmen attending an IHE in their home State to 

the number of first-time freshmen attending public 

degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 

2,169,077. For the purposes of this estimate, the 

Department chooses the midpoint of these figures, 

which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate 

(described earlier) that 94 percent of all first-time 

postsecondary students graduated from public 

schools, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 

public high school graduates enroll in public 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State. 

$51,600 ($1,200 per State times 43 

States). 

The 13,409 LEAs located in those 43 

States will need to provide information 

associated with Indicator (c)(11). Based 

on an estimate of the total number of 

students enrolled in public IHEs in their 

home State,4 and based on the 

assumption that LEAs can provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, we estimate that these LEAs will 

require a total of 84,584 hours to comply 

with the requirements for Indicator 

(c)(11) at a total cost of $2,114,597. 

Divided by the total number of affected 

LEAs, we estimate that each LEA will 

require 6.31 hours to provide this 

information. This is a reduction from 

the average hours per response in the 

November 2009 Notice because the 

current estimate relates only to students 

who attend in-state, public IHEs rather 

than to all students attending an IHE. 

Information on the remaining students 

will be covered under the (c)(11) 

alternative standard. At $25 per hour, 

the average cost per LEA of meeting the 

requirements of this Indicator is 

approximately $158. 

Again, based on our estimate of the 

total number of students enrolled in 

public IHEs in their home State and the 

assumption that IHEs can provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, we estimate that a total of 84,584 

hours will be required for the 1,676 

IHEs in the 43 affected States to respond 

to this requirement. On average, each 

IHE will need 50.47 hours to collect and 

report the information associated with 

Indicator (c)(11). This is an increase in 

the average hours per response in the 

November 2009 Notice because this 

estimate only relates to students who 

attend in-state public IHEs rather than 

all students attending an IHE. The 

remaining students will be covered 

under the (c)(11) alternative standard. 

The average burden per response 

increased from the burden estimated in 

the November 2009 Notice because the 

analysis now accounts for in-state 

public IHEs in the 43 States that have 

not yet met this requirement. Because 

74 percent of freshmen attend in-state 

public IHEs, the burden in this notice is 

higher because it is no longer shared 

with private and out-of-state IHEs, 

which led to lower overall burden than 

we estimated for all IHEs in the 

November 2009 Notice. We expect that 

1,676 IHEs will need to provide this 

information. At $25 per hour, the 

average cost per IHE for collecting and 

reporting this information is $1,261.75. 

The total estimated cost for IHEs to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

for Indicator (c)(11) is $2,114,597. 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with the reporting requirements in 

Indicator (c)(11) is thus $4,280,794. 

Based on information provided by the 

States, we expect that 47 States will 

need to collect and report the 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(12). We estimate that, on average, a 

State will need 20 hours to collect and 

report the information. This represents 

a 20-hour reduction from our estimate 

in the November 2009 Notice because 

States have indicated that, on average, 

they have completed 50 percent of the 

work associated with this Indicator. At 

$30 per hour, the average cost for 

collecting and reporting this 

information is $600. The total estimated 

cost for States to comply with the 

reporting requirements for Indicator 

(c)(12) is $28,200 ($600 per State times 

47 States). 

The 1,555 IHEs located in these States 

must report information on the number 

of students who have completed at least 

one year’s worth of college credit within 

two years of enrollment in the IHE. 

Based on data from the Digest of 

Education Statistics, we estimate that 

1,140,855 first-time freshmen are 

enrolled in degree-granting in-state 

public IHEs in the 47 States that have 

not yet met this requirement. We 

estimate that IHEs can provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, which leads to approximately 

57,043 hours of total effort across the 

affected IHEs at an estimated cost of 

$1,426,069. By dividing this total 

number of hours by the 1,555 public 

IHEs in the 47 States, we estimate that, 

on average, an IHE will need 36.68 

hours to collect and report the 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(12). This represents a reduction from 

the average hours per response that we 

estimated in the November 2009 Notice 

because some States with higher than 

average percentages of in-state students 

have already completed this work. We 

estimate a reduced average response 

time after excluding the IHEs from 

States that have completed the work 

from the calculation. At $25 per hour of 

IHE effort, we estimate that the average 

cost for collecting and reporting this 

information is $917 per IHE. 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with the reporting requirements in 

Indicator (c)(12) is $1,454,269. The total 

estimated cost for complying with the 

collection and reporting requirements 

associated with Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), 

and (c)(12) is accordingly $5,736,263. 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with those collection and reporting 

requirements and the requirements in 

this notice is $5,870,903. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: 

The Secretary certifies that this 

regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are small LEAs 

receiving funds under this program and 

small IHEs. 

This regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

LEAs because they will be able to meet 

the costs of compliance with this 

regulatory action using the funds 

provided under this program. 

With respect to small IHEs, the U.S. 

Small Business Administration Size 

Standards define these institutions as 

‘‘small entities’’ if they are for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions, which are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000. Based on data from the 

Department’s Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), up to 

427 small IHEs with revenues of less 

than $5 million may be affected by these 

requirements; only 33 of these IHEs are 

public. The small IHEs represent only 

13 percent of degree-granting IHEs. In 

addition, only 98,032 students (0.5 

percent) enrolled in degree-granting 

IHEs in fall 2007 attended these small 

institutions; just 11,830 of these 

students are enrolled in small, degreegranting public IHEs. As the burden for 

indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) is driven 

by the number of students for whom 

IHEs will be required to submit data, 

small IHEs will require significantly less 

effort to adhere to these requirements 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4672 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

than will be the case for larger IHEs. 

Based on IPEDS data, the Department 

estimates that 1,873 of these students 

are first-time freshmen. As stated earlier 

in the Summary of Costs and Benefits 

section of this notice, the Department 

estimates that, as required by indicator 

(c)(11), IHEs will be able to confirm the 

enrollment of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Applying this estimate to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

at small IHEs, the Department estimates 

that these IHEs will need to spend 94 

hours to respond to this requirement at 

a total cost of $2,350 (assuming a cost 

of $25 per hour). 

The effort involved in reporting the 

number of students enrolling in a public 

IHE in their home State who complete 

at least one year’s worth of college 

credit applicable toward a degree within 

two years as required by indicator 

(c)(12) will also apply to small IHEs, but 

will be limited to students who enroll 

in public IHEs in their home State. As 

discussed earlier in the Summary of 

Costs and Benefits section of this notice, 

the Department estimates that 81 

percent of first-time freshmen who 

graduate from public high schools enroll 

in degree-granting IHEs in their home 

State. Applying this percentage to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

enrolled in small public IHEs (1,873), 

the Department estimates that small 

IHEs will be required to report credit 

completion data for a total of 1,517 

students. For this requirement, the 

Department also estimates that IHEs will 

be able to report the credit completion 

status of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Again, applying this data entry 

rate to the estimated number of firsttime freshmen at small public IHEs in 

their home State, the Department 

estimates that these IHEs will need to 

spend 76 hours to respond to this 

requirement at a total cost of $1,900. 

The total cost of these requirements for 

small IHEs is, therefore, $4,250; $2,068 

of this cost will be borne by small 

private IHEs, and $2,182 of the cost will 

be borne by small public IHEs. Based on 

the total number of small IHEs across 

the Nation, the estimated cost per small 

private IHE is approximately $10, and 

the estimated cost per small public IHE 

is $66. The Department has, therefore, 

determined that the requirements will 

not represent a significant burden on 

small not-for-profit IHEs. 

In addition, the Department believes 

the benefits provided under this 

regulatory action will outweigh the 

burdens on these institutions of 

complying with the requirements. One 

of these benefits will be the provision of 

better information on student success in 

postsecondary education to 

policymakers, educators, parents, and 

other stakeholders. The Department 

believes that the information gathered 

and reported as a result of these 

requirements will improve public 

accountability for performance; help 

States, LEAs, and schools learn from 

one another and improve their decisionmaking; and inform Federal 

policymaking. 

A second major benefit is that better 

public information on State and local 

progress in the four reform areas will 

likely spur more rapid progress on those 

reforms, because States and LEAs that 

appear to be lagging in one area or 

another may see a need to redouble their 

efforts. The Department believes that 

more rapid progress on the essential 

educational reforms will have major 

benefits nationally, and that these 

reforms have the potential to drive 

dramatic improvements in student 

outcomes. The requirements that apply 

to IHEs should, in particular, spur more 

rapid implementation of pre-K–16 State 

longitudinal data systems. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

This helps ensure that: the public 

understands the Department’s collection 

instructions, respondents can provide 

the requested data in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the Department can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

This notice of revisions contains 

information collection requirements 

previously approved under OMB 

control number 1810–0695. 

A Federal agency cannot conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

Revisions to SFSF Indicator (c)(11) 

Requirements: 

Under the Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard, a State must publicly report, 

by December 31, 2013, information on 

the extent to which it has data-sharing 

agreements with private and out-of-state 

public IHEs that enable the State to 

track its recent high school graduates. 

We estimate that a State will need, on 

average, 40 hours to collect and report 

this information. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 43 States will 

request use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. The total estimated 

hours for States to comply with the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard 

reporting requirements is accordingly an 

increase of 1,720 hours (40 hours per 

request times 43 requests) under 

collection 1810–0695. 

Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions of Deadlines for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) Alternative Standard, 

and Requirements for Revised Plans for 

Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12): 

Because States that did not meet the 

requirements associated with an SFSF 

indicator or descriptor were required to 

submit a plan for achieving compliance 

that includes progress tracking and 

providing regular public progress 

reports, we do not believe that any new 

effort will be needed in order for a State 

to determine whether to request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

In requesting a deadline extension or 

use of the alternative standard, a State 

must provide a description of its current 

capacity with respect to the applicable 

indicator and a signed assurance that it 

will comply with the revised 

requirements for the indicator and will 

submit its plan for doing so to the 

Department within 60 days of the 

request. The level of effort needed to 

meet these requirements should be 

minimal. We estimate that a State will 

need, on average, eight hours to 

complete such a request. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 40 States will 

request an extension of the deadline for 

Indicator (b)(1), 43 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(11), 47 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(12), and 43 States will request use of 

the Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard. In total, States will complete 

an estimated 173 requests. The total 

estimated hours for States to comply 

with the requirements for requests is an 

increase of 1,384 hours (eight hours per 

request times 173 requests) under 

collection 1810–0695. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4673 

5A State requesting both an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (c)(11) (as it applies to data 

on student enrollment in in-state public IHEs) and 

use of the alternative standard for that indicator (as 

it applies to data on student enrollment in private 

and out-of-state public IHEs) could address both of 

these requests in a single plan revision for the 

indicator. Consequently, the total number of 

completed plan revisions will likely be lower than 

this estimate. 

6According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

2009, 2,240,414 first-time freshmen enrolled in 

public, degree-granting IHEs in fall 2008, which 

represented 74 percent of all first-time freshmen. 

See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/ 

dt09_199.asp. Also in fall 2008, 2,109,931 freshmen 

who graduated from high school within the last 

12 months attended degree-granting IHEs in their 

home State, which represented 81 percent of all 

freshmen. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 

d09/tables/dt09_223.asp. 1. An estimate of the 

number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public, 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be 

derived two ways. Applying the percentage of firsttime freshmen attending public degree-granting 

IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending 

an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 

1,508,484, and applying the percentage of first-time 

freshmen attending an IHE in their home State to 

the number of first-time freshmen attending public 

degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 

2,169,077. For the purposes of this estimate, the 

Department chooses the midpoint of these figures, 

which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate 

(described earlier) that 94 percent of all first-time 

postsecondary students graduated from public 

schools, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 

public high school graduates enroll in public 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State. 

A State requesting a deadline 

extension or the use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) alternative standard will then be 

required to submit to the Department, 

within 60 days, a revised plan with 

respect to the applicable indicator that 

includes the specific steps the State will 

take to meet the revised requirements 

for the indicator, the budget for 

developing and implementing the 

revised plan, and the responsible agency 

or agencies. We estimate that a State 

will need, on average, eight hours to 

complete a plan revision consistent with 

the requirements. 

As discussed above, States will 

complete an estimated 173 total requests 

for deadline extensions or for use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

Accordingly, we estimate that States 

will complete, at most, 173 plan 

revisions.5 At eight hours per revision, 

the total estimated burden to States for 

complying with the plan revision 

requirements is an increase of 1,384 

hours (eight hours per request times 173 

requests) under collection 1810–0695. 

The total estimated burden for 

complying with the requirements for 

requests and for plan revisions is 

accordingly 2,768 hours. 

After requesting an extension and 

providing a plan, a State must collect 

and report the information associated 

with Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and 

(c)(12) by December 31, 2013. Based on 

information available from States on 

implementation of their SFSF plan, we 

estimate that 40 States will need to 

report and collect the information 

associated with Indicator (b)(1). At an 

estimated one hour per collection and 

report, the total estimated burden to 

States is an increase of 40 hours (one 

hour per State times 40 States) under 

collection 1810–0695. The average 

response time of one hour per collection 

is a one-hour reduction from the 

estimates we provided in the November 

2009 Notice because States have 

indicated that, on average, they have 

completed 50 percent of the work 

associated with reporting on this 

indicator. 

As 9 States have already met the 

requirement for Indicator (c)(11), we 

expect that 43 States will need to collect 

and report the information associated 

with Indicator (c)(11), or provide 

evidence that they have developed the 

capacity to do so, for students who 

attend in-state, public IHEs. We estimate 

that, on average, a State will need 40 

hours to meet this requirement. This is 

a reduction from the average hours per 

response that we estimated in the 

November 2009 Notice because the 

current estimate only relates to students 

who attend in-state, public IHEs rather 

than all students enrolled in an IHE. 

The remaining students will be covered 

under the (c)(11) alternative standard. 

The current estimate will equal a 1,720 

hour (40 hours per State times 43 States) 

increase under collection 1810–0695. 

The 13,409 LEAs located in those 43 

States will need to provide information 

associated with Indicator (c)(11). Based 

on an estimate of the total number of 

students enrolled in public IHEs in their 

home State,6 and based on the 

assumption that LEAs can provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, we estimate that these LEAs will 

require a total of 84,584 hours to comply 

with the requirements for Indicator 

(c)(11). Divided by the total number of 

affected LEAs, we estimate that each 

LEA will require 6.31 hours to provide 

this information. This will be a 

reduction from the average hours per 

response estimated in the November 

2009 Notice because the current 

estimate only relates to students who 

attend in-state, public IHEs rather than 

all students attending an IHE. 

Information on the remaining students 

will be covered under the (c)(11) 

alternative standard. 

Again, based on our estimate of the 

total number of students enrolled in 

public IHEs in their home State and the 

assumption that IHEs could provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, we estimate that a total of 84,584 

hours will be required for the 1,676 

IHEs in the 43 affected States to respond 

to this requirement. On average, each 

IHE will need 50.47 hours to provide 

the information associated with 

Indicator (c)(11). This is an increase in 

the average hours per response 

estimated in the November 2009 Notice 

because this estimate only relates to 

students who attend in-state public IHEs 

rather than all students attending an 

IHE. The remaining students will be 

covered under the (c)(11) alternative 

standard. The average burden per 

response increased from the burden 

estimated in the November 2009 Notice 

because the analysis now accounts for 

in-state public IHEs in the 43 States that 

have not yet met this requirement. 

Because 74 percent of freshmen attend 

in-state public IHEs, the burden under 

these revisions is higher because it is no 

longer shared with private and out-ofstate IHEs, which led to an estimate of 

a lower overall burden for all IHEs in 

the November 2009 Notice. We expect 

that 1,676 IHEs will need to provide this 

information. 

The total estimated hours for 

complying with the requirements of 

Indicator (c)(11) is 170,888. 

We estimate that the State burden for 

collecting and reporting the information 

associated with Indicator (c)(12), or 

providing evidence that the State has 

developed the capacity to do so, will be 

approximately 20 hours per State. This 

is a 20-hour reduction from the 

estimates in the November 2009 Notice 

because States have indicated that they 

have, on average, completed 50 percent 

of the work for this Indicator. Based on 

information provided by the States, we 

expect that 47 States will need to 

provide this information. Accordingly, 

the total burden to States is an increase 

of 940 hours (20 hours per State times 

47 States) under collection 1810–0695. 

The 1,555 IHEs located in these States 

must report information on the number 

of students who have completed at least 

one year’s worth of college credit within 

two years of enrollment in the IHE. 

Based on data from the Digest of 

Education Statistics, we estimate that 

1,140,855 first-time freshmen are 

enrolled in degree-granting in-state 

public IHEs in the 47 States that have 

not yet met this requirement. We 

estimate that IHEs can provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, which leads to approximately 

57,043 hours of total effort across the 

affected IHEs. By dividing the this total 

number of hours by the 1,555 public 

IHEs in the 47 States, we estimate that, 

on average, an IHE will need 36.68 

hours to collect and report the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(12). The average hours per response 

is less than the estimate in the 

November 2009 Notice because some 

States with higher than average 

percentages of in-state students have 

already completed this work. Excluding 

the IHEs from these States from the 

calculations led to a reduced average 

response time. 

The total estimated burden hours for 

complying with the collection and 

reporting requirements for Indicator 

(c)(12) is thus 57,983. 

The estimated burden hours for 

complying with the collection and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard 

is discussed above. 

The total estimated burden hours for 

complying with the collection and 

reporting requirements associated with 

Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11) and (c)(12) is 

accordingly 228,911 hours. 

The total estimated burden for 

complying with the requirements in this 

notice is an increase of 233,399 hours 

under collection 1810–0695. 

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

Information collection OMB Control number and estimated change in 

burden. 

This notice of revisions establishes an extension for collecting and reporting information associated with Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12); an alternative standard for Indicator (c)(11); 

establishes requirements for requests for extensions of deadlines for Indicators (b)(1), 

(c)(11), and (c)(12); and establishes requirements for revised plans for Indicators (b)(1), 

(c)(11), and (c)(12).

OMB 1810–0695. The burden will increase by 

233,399 hours. 

Assessment of Educational Impact: In 

the NPR and in accordance with section 

411 of the General Education Provisions 

Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e–4, we requested 

comments on whether the proposed 

requirements would require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Based on the response to the NPR and 

on our review, we have determined that 

these final requirements do not require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

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 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 

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. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.394 (Education 

Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 (Government 

Services Fund). 

Dated: January 26, 2012. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2125 Filed 1–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OS–0010] 

RIN 1894–AA03 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Program 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final requirement. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) is adopting as a final 

requirement, without change, the 

interim final requirement for the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) 

program that extended to January 31, 

2012, the deadline by which States must 

collect and publicly report data and 

other information on various SFSF 

indicators and descriptors. 

DATES: This final requirement is 

effective January 31, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler, State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Program, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., 

room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202– 

0008. Telephone: (202) 260–9737 or by 

email: State.Fiscal.Fund@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: 

Background 

On September 23, 2011, the Secretary 

published in the Federal Register (76 

FR 59036) an interim final requirement 

extending, to January 31, 2012, the 

deadline for collecting and publicly 

reporting data and other information on 

various SFSF indicators and descriptors. 

The interim final requirement became 

effective on the date of its publication 

in the Federal Register. At the time the 

interim final requirement was 

published, the Secretary requested 

public comment on whether an 

extension of the SFSF deadline to 

January 31, 2012, was warranted. 

As explained in the Summary section 

of the interim final requirement, the 

Secretary extended the deadline in 

response to the many challenges and 

competing priorities that States were 

facing in meeting the SFSF data 

collection and reporting requirements 

by the original September 30, 2011, 

deadline. 

There are no differences between the 

interim final requirement and this final 

requirement. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES