Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23487 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165-–REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. A new temporary § 165.T09–0260 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T09–0260 Safety Zone; Red River. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: Waters of the Red River in 

the State of North Dakota, including 

those portions of the river bordered by 

Richland, Cass, Traill, Grand Forks, 

Walsh, and Pembina Counties, plus 

those in Minnesota South of a line 

drawn across latitude 46°20′00′′ N, 

extending the entire width of the river. 

(b) Effective date. This rule is effective 

from 12:01 a.m. April 8, 2011 until 

11:59 p.m. July 15, 2011. 

(c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule 

will be enforced from April 8, 2011 

until 11:59 p.m. May 15, 2011 while 

dangerous flooding conditions exist. 

The Captain of the Port Sector Upper 

Mississippi River will inform the public 

through broadcast notice to mariners of 

any changes to enforcement periods. 

(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in § 165, 

Subpart C of this part, entry into this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port Sector Upper 

Mississippi River and Marine Safety 

Unit Duluth or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River 

or a designated representative. The 

Captain of the Port Sector Upper 

Mississippi River representative may be 

contacted at (314) 269–2332. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Sector Upper 

Mississippi River or their designated 

representative. Designated Captain of 

the Port representatives include United 

States Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

S.L. Hudson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Upper Mississippi River. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10147 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0005] 

RIN 1810–AB10 

Race to the Top Fund 

ACTION: Final requirements. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) adopts as final, 

without changes, the interim final 

requirements for the Race to the Top 

Fund to incorporate and make binding 

for Phase 2 of the competition State 

budget guidance. 

DATES: These requirements are effective 

May 27, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler, Telephone: 202–205–3775 

or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On April 2, 2010, the Secretary 

published interim final requirements for 

the Race to the Top Fund in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 16668). The interim 

final requirements became effective 

April 2, 2010. At the time the interim 

final requirements were published, the 

Secretary requested public comment on 

the interim final requirements. 

In the interim final requirements, the 

Secretary made budget ranges for the 

Race to the Top Fund, which were 

originally included in the Race to the 

Top Fund NIA for fiscal year (FY) 2010, 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59836), 

binding on applicants. In developing the 

budget ranges, the Department grouped 

the States into five categories by ranking 

every State according to its share of the 

national population of children ages 5 

through 17 and identifying natural 

breaks in the population numbers. The 

Department then developed overlapping 

budget ranges for each category based 

on the student population data. 

As explained in the preamble to the 

interim final requirements (75 FR 

16668, 16669), the Secretary made the 

budget ranges a requirement in response 

to the unexpected budget requests 

received in Phase 1 of the Race to the 

Top competition, which varied widely 

and proposed, for the most part, budgets 

that were well above the suggested 

funding ranges. Additionally, the 

Department performed an analysis and 

did not find a relationship between 

States’ scoring ranks in Phase 1 and the 

extent to which States exceeded the 

Department’s suggested budget ranges. 

In balancing the need to fund highquality reform plans and to ensure that 

a sufficient number of States received 

grants to serve as models of change for 

the Nation with the discrete amount of 

funding available, the Secretary 

determined that it was essential to make 

the budget ranges binding on applicants. 

There are no differences between the 

interim final requirements and these 

final requirements. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

In response to our invitation in the 

interim final requirements, one 

commenter submitted comments. 

Generally we do not address technical 

and other minor changes, or suggested 

changes the law does not authorize us 

to make under the applicable statutory 

authority. In addition we do not address 

general comments that raised concerns 

not directly related to the interim final 

requirements. 

Comment: The commenter raised 

concerns about the impact of making the 

budget ranges mandatory on States for 

Phase 2 of the Race to the Top 

competition without first considering 

public comments. The commenter 

stated that the budget caps would force 

States to propose less ambitious 

activities than those proposed in their 

Phase 1 applications, and that this in 

turn would harm their ability to 

undertake the meaningful reform efforts 

sought under the Race to the Top 

program. The commenter also noted that 

limiting States’ budgets would in turn 

limit the amount of funds that local 

educational agencies (LEAs), 

particularly small LEAs, would receive, 

thereby undercutting the capacity of 

those LEAs to implement bold reform 

plans. Additionally, the commenter 

expressed concern with the timing of 

the release of the interim final 

requirements, April 2, 2010, contending 

that States would have far too little time 

to effectively alter their Phase 1 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

23488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Department developed budget ranges for 

each State by ranking every State according to its 

share of the national population of children ages 5 

through 17 based on data from ‘‘Estimates of the 

Resident Population by Selected Age Groups for the 

United States, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2008’’ 

released by the Population Division of the U.S. 

Census Bureau. The Department identified the 

natural breaks in the population data and then 

developed overlapping budget ranges for each 

category taking into consideration the total amount 

of funds available for awards. 

applications to stay within the budget 

ranges before the Phase 2 application 

deadline of June 1, 2010. Finally, the 

commenter expressed concern with the 

fairness of creating such a requirement 

in light of the two Race to the Top Phase 

1 winners that received awards in 

excess of their suggested budget caps. 

The commenter suggested that this lack 

of equitability in award amounts 

between Phase 1 and Phase 2 grantees 

would hinder the Department’s ability 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

program. 

Discussion: As explained in detail in 

the preamble to the interim final 

requirements, the Department did not 

have sufficient time to complete noticeand-comment rulemaking on the interim 

final requirements given that all funds 

under the Race to the Top program were 

required to be obligated by September 

30, 2010. Completing notice-andcomment rulemaking would have taken 

four to six months, and, in 

consideration of the time needed to 

conduct Phase 2 of the competition, the 

time States needed to draft applications, 

and the impending September 30th 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA) obligation deadline, 

we concluded that it would be 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest for the Department to complete 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

In deciding whether to make the 

budget ranges binding on applicants, we 

considered whether States would be 

able to propose comprehensive and 

successful reform plans within the 

proposed budget ranges. Because we did 

not find a relationship between States’ 

scoring ranks in Phase 1 and the extent 

to which States exceeded the 

Department’s suggested budget ranges, 

we concluded that States could, in fact, 

develop comprehensive reform plans 

that met the Race to the Top selection 

criteria. We disagree with the 

commenter that States that submitted 

applications in Phase 1 were 

automatically forced to propose less 

ambitious activities in their Phase 2 

applications. Requiring States to limit 

their budget requests only required State 

staff to make strategic decisions about 

where Race to the Top funds were most 

needed and where they could 

coordinate, reallocate, or repurpose 

other Federal, State, and local sources of 

funding to support Race to the Top 

goals, as evaluated under selection 

criterion (A)(2)(i)(d). While capping the 

amount of funds that a State could 

request necessarily limited the 50 

percent of Race to the Top funds 

required to flow to participating LEAs 

under section 14007 of the ARRA, States 

could augment the amount of funds 

available for participating LEAs from 

the State portion of the award. 

The Race to the Top competition, 

even with the budget caps, made 

available the largest amounts of funding 

ever offered to States through a 

Department of Education discretionary 

grant program. We believe these 

amounts were sufficient to ensure a 

robust competition and to stimulate 

comprehensive education reform 

throughout the country. 

Applicants had approximately two 

months from the announcement of the 

requirement that States conform to the 

previously suggested budget ranges 

until the application submission 

deadline for Phase 2. While we 

recognize that it would have been 

helpful to give applicants more time 

between the announcement of the 

requirement and the Phase 2 application 

deadline, we could not make the final 

decision about whether to make the 

budget caps binding until after the 

Phase 1 competition was complete, and 

we had the opportunity to analyze 

applicants’ budget requests and scores. 

Specifically, we needed the results from 

the Phase 1 competition to investigate 

whether there was a relationship 

between the amount of funds requested 

and a State’s rank in Phase 1 to ensure 

that making the budget ranges binding 

would not limit a State’s ability to 

propose a successful reform plan in 

Phase 2. Additionally, applicants in 

Phase 1 of the competition had two 

months from the date of publication of 

the NIA to prepare their applications, 

just as applicants in Phase 2 had after 

publication of the budget requirements. 

Finally, we do not believe that there 

will be difficulty comparing results 

across Phase 1 and Phase 2 grantees. 

The program is not focused on dollarfor-dollar spending, but rather on 

improved educational outcomes in 

winning States. 

Changes: None. 

Final Requirements 

For the reasons discussed previously, 

the Secretary amends the Race to the 

Top Fund final requirements published 

in the Federal Register on November 18, 

2009 (74 FR 59688, 59799) to include a 

new section under the heading Program 

Requirements, as follows: 

Budget Requirements: For Phase 2 of 

the fiscal year 2010 competition, and for 

any subsequent competitions, the State’s 

budget must conform to the following 

budget ranges: 1

Category 1—$350–700 million: 

California, Texas, New York, Florida. 

Category 2—$200–400 million: 

Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, 

Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey. 

Category 3—$150–250 million: 

Virginia, Arizona, Indiana, Washington, 

Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, 

Maryland, Wisconsin. 

Category 4—$60–175 million: 

Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, 

Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, 

Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Connecticut, Utah, Mississippi, Iowa, 

Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada. 

Category 5—$20–75 million: New 

Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, 

New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode 

Island, Montana, Delaware, South 

Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, 

Wyoming, District of Columbia. 

The State should develop a budget 

that is appropriate for the plan it 

outlines in its application; however we 

will not consider a State’s application if 

its request exceeds the maximum in its 

budget range. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 

111–5. 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, or adversely affect a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

tribal governments or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an 

‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2) 

create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or local 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23489 

order. The Secretary has determined 

that this regulatory action is not 

significant under section 3(f) of the 

Executive order. 

We summarized the potential costs 

and benefits of these final requirements 

in the interim final requirements 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 2, 2010 at 75 FR 16668, 16670. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final requirements do not contain 

new information collection 

requirements subject to review by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides notification 

of our specific plans regarding budget 

requirements for this program. 

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: http://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. 

Dated: April 21, 2011. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10224 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0014, FRL–9299–3] 

RIN 2060–AQ73 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Reconsideration of 

Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions; 

Interim Rule; Stay and Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing an 

extension of the public comment period 

on the interim rule titled, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of 

Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay 

and Revisions.’’ It published in the 

Federal Register on March 30, 2011. 

EPA is extending the comment period 

that originally closed on April 29, 2011, 

by an additional 32 days. The comment 

period will now close on May 31, 2011. 

EPA is extending the comment period 

because of a request we received, which 

is contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before May 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2004–0014, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–1741. 

• Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2004–0014, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Northwest, Mailcode: 6102T, 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of 2 copies. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

Northwest, Room 3334, Washington, DC 

20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2004–0014. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 

0014. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact Peter 

Keller, Air Quality Policy Division, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (C504–03), Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541–5339, facsimile 

number (919) 541–5509, electronic mail 

e-mail address: keller.peter@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES