1138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

212 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

314) (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the Commission 

to establish and maintain a product 

safety information database that is 

available to the public. Specifically, 

section 212 of the CPSIA amended the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) 

to create a new section 6A of the CPSA, 

titled ‘‘Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database’’ 

(‘‘Database’’). Section 6A(a)(1) of the 

CPSA requires the Commission to 

establish and maintain a database on the 

safety of consumer products, and other 

products or substances regulated by the 

Commission. The Database must be 

publicly available, searchable, and 

accessible through the Commission’s 

Web site. 

In the Federal Register of December 9, 

2010 (75 FR 76832), we published a 

final rule to establish the Database. The 

final rule will become effective on 

January 10, 2011. 

Through this notice, we are 

announcing that we will conduct two 

Web conferences to demonstrate certain 

aspects of the Database. The first Web 

conference, which will be held on 

January 11, 2011, will focus on the 

incident form that the public will use to 

file a report of harm and the search 

function of the Database. The Web 

conference is intended to inform all 

interested stakeholders of the 

information required on the form to be 

used to report an incident, in addition 

to an explanation of the public search 

function of the Database. 

The second Web conference, which 

will be held on January 20, 2011, will 

focus on the industry registration and 

comment features, the process for 

reporting incidents, and the public 

search component of the Database. 

Persons interested in viewing either 

Web conference or attending a webcast 

in person should register in advance as 

explained in the ADDRESSES section of 

this notice. The CPSC Web link at 

http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

meetingsignup.html has more 

information about the demonstrations. 

Dated: January 3, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–120 Filed 1–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0018] 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria under 

the Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

Grant (EAG) competition. The Secretary 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions using funds 

from fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later 

years. We take these actions in order to 

establish selection criteria that are likely 

to recognize high-quality proposals and 

to help focus Federal financial 

assistance on applications that address 

pressing needs and promising 

developments related to developing and 

implementing assessments under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 7, 2011. We 

encourage you to submit comments well 

in advance of this date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID and the term 

‘‘Enhanced Assessment Grants— 

Comments’’ at the top of your 

comments. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ’’How To Use 

This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket 

page is also available at http:// 

www.ed.gov/programs/eag. 

Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or 

Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (Attention: Enhanced 

Assessment Grants Comments), U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., room 3W210, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy for 

comments received from members of the 

public (including those comments submitted 

by mail, commercial delivery, or hand 

delivery) is to make these submissions 

available for public viewing in their entirety 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to include in 

their comments only information that they 

wish to make publicly available on the 

Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Collette Roney. Telephone: (202) 401– 

5245 or by e-mail: 

collette.roney@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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation 

to Comment: We invite you to submit 

comments regarding this notice. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person, in room 

3W210, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, 

Monday through Friday of each week 

except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

Grant (EAG) program is to enhance the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 1139 

quality of assessment instruments and 

systems used by States for measuring 

the academic achievement and growth 

of elementary and secondary students. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a. 

Proposed Priorities: 

Background: 

Proficiency on the State assessments 

required under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA is the primary indicator of student 

academic achievement and, hence, a 

crucial measure of State success in 

meeting the goals of the ESEA. In view 

of the critical importance of these State 

assessments, section 6112 of the ESEA 

authorizes the Department, through the 

EAG program, to make competitive 

grant awards to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) to help them enhance 

the quality of their assessment 

instruments and assessment systems. 

The EAG program includes four 

statutory priorities: 

(a) Collaborating with institutions of 

higher education, other research 

institutions, or other organizations to 

improve the quality, validity, and 

reliability of State academic assessments 

beyond the requirements for these 

assessments described in section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; 

(b) Measuring student academic 

achievement using multiple measures of 

student academic achievement from 

multiple sources; 

(c) Charting student progress over 

time; and 

(d) Evaluating student academic 

achievement through the development 

of comprehensive academic assessment 

instruments, such as performance- and 

technology-based academic 

assessments. 

EAG grantees must address one or 

more of these statutory priorities. 

Through this notice, the Department 

proposes two additional priorities as 

well as requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria that are designed to 

support States’ assessment work and to 

build upon the assessments that the 

Department is funding through the Race 

to the Top Assessment (RTTA) program. 

Under the RTTA program, the 

Department awarded grants to two 

consortia, which collectively include 44 

States and the District of Columbia, to 

support the development of new 

assessment systems that will be used by 

multiple States; are valid, reliable, and 

fair for their intended purposes and for 

all student subgroups; and measure 

student knowledge and skills against a 

common set of college- and career-ready 

standards in English language arts and 

mathematics. 

The Department is also funding work 

on assessment development through the 

General Supervision Enhancement 

Grants (GSEG) program, which is 

authorized by the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act. The 

Department recently awarded funds 

under the GSEG program to support two 

consortia of States in developing 

alternate assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities that fit coherently 

with assessments being developed 

under the RTTA program. 

Section 1111(b)(7) of the ESEA 

requires States receiving ESEA Title I, 

Part A allocations to administer, on a 

yearly basis, valid and reliable 

assessments of the English language 

proficiency of all English learners and, 

under section 3122 of the ESEA, States 

receiving funds under Title III, Part A, 

Subpart 1 of the ESEA must use the 

results of these English language 

proficiency assessments for 

accountability purposes. The English 

language proficiency assessments 

developed to date have been designed to 

align with English language proficiency 

standards that correspond with Statespecific standards in reading/language 

arts and mathematics. States need 

English language proficiency 

assessments, however, that align with 

English language proficiency standards 

that correspond to standards that 

prepare students for college and the 

workplace. The Department did not 

include English language proficiency 

assessments among the priorities 

established in the notice inviting 

applications for the RTTA program. 

Accordingly, we propose here a priority 

for the EAG program for projects that 

propose to develop a system of English 

language proficiency assessments 

aligned with English language 

proficiency standards that correspond to 

a common set of college- and careerready standards (as defined in the 

definitions section in this notice) in 

English language arts and mathematics 

that will be operational by the end of 

the project period (i.e., ready for largescale administration). These 

assessments would complement the 

assessments that are being developed 

under the RTTA program. 

This priority would support the 

development of an English language 

proficiency assessment system for 

English learners, as specified in the 

priority. This priority would not 

support the development of English 

language proficiency assessments for 

English learners with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities who are 

eligible to participate in alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards in 

accordance with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2). The 

Department previously awarded a grant 

to support the development of alternate 

assessments of English language 

proficiency for such English learners 

through a prior EAG competition. In 

addition, through the GSEG program, 

the Department is currently funding the 

development of alternate assessments 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards that measure 

student knowledge and skills against a 

set of college- and career-ready 

standards in English language arts and 

mathematics held in common by 

multiple States. We believe that these 

investments in alternate assessments 

will help prepare the field for 

developing the next generation of 

English language proficiency 

assessments for English learners with 

the most significant cognitive 

disabilities. 

The Department notes that, while this 

priority would not support the 

development of English language 

proficiency assessments for English 

learners with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities, all States remain 

responsible, in accordance with section 

1111(b)(7) of the ESEA, for assessing the 

English language proficiency of all 

English learners, including English 

learners with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. We are therefore 

including in the priority a requirement 

that an applicant describe the strategies 

it and, if it applies as part of a 

consortium, all States in the consortium 

would use to assess the English 

language proficiency of English learners 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities in lieu of including them in 

the operational administration of the 

assessments developed for other English 

learners under a grant from this 

competition. 

The Department plans to fund grant 

awards for at least a three-year project 

period to develop operational 

assessments for an English language 

proficiency assessment system. 

During public meetings the 

Department held to gain input on the 

design of the RTTA program’s fiscal 

year (FY) 2010 competition, and in 

other arenas, States indicated to the 

Department their interest in continuing 

to work together in consortia to develop 

assessments aligned with common 

State-developed standards. Therefore, 

we propose a priority for the EAG 

program that would support projects 

that propose collaborative efforts among 

States. 

The Secretary may apply one or more 

of these priorities in any year in which 

the program is in effect. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 

Proposed Priority 1—English 

Language Proficiency Assessment 

System. 

Background: 

English learners (as defined in this 

notice) must acquire both English 

language proficiency and content area 

knowledge in order to succeed in school 

and graduate from high school collegeand career-ready. In order to inform 

teaching, learning, and program 

improvement, educators need data from 

assessments about the English language 

proficiency level of each English learner 

and his or her progress toward 

attainment of proficiency in English. 

Assessments that provide that 

information would also assist in 

building the knowledge base about 

promising practices to improve English 

proficiency and thus support efforts to 

improve instruction for English learners. 

Proposed Priority 1 would support the 

development of high-quality English 

language proficiency assessments that 

are aligned with English language 

proficiency standards that in turn 

correspond to a common set of collegeand career-ready standards in English 

language arts and mathematics. States in 

a consortium developing these English 

language proficiency assessments would 

use a common definition of ‘‘English 

learner’’ and common criteria for exiting 

a student from English learner status in 

order to ensure consistent identification 

of students as English learners across 

member States. These assessments also 

would be used to help determine the 

effectiveness of English language 

instruction educational programs. 

Proposed Priority 1: 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose a comprehensive plan to 

develop an English language proficiency 

assessment system that is valid, reliable, 

and fair for its intended purpose. Such 

a plan must include the following 

features: 

(a) Design. The assessment system 

must— 

(1) Be designed for implementation in 

multiple States; 

(2) Be based on a common definition 

of ‘‘English learner’’ adopted by the 

applicant State and, if the applicant 

applies as part of a consortium, adopted 

and held in common by all States in the 

consortium; 

(2) At a minimum, include diagnostic 

(placement) and summative 

assessments; 

(3) Measure students’ English 

language proficiency against a set of 

English language proficiency standards 

held by the applicant State and, if the 

applicant applies as part of a 

consortium, held in common by all 

States in the consortium, that 

correspond to a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) in English language arts 

and mathematics; 

(4) Cover the full range of the English 

language proficiency standards across 

the four language domains of reading, 

writing, speaking, and listening, as 

required by section 3113(b)(2) of the 

ESEA; 

(5) Measure the linguistic components 

of language (e.g., phonology, 

morphology, syntax, vocabulary); 

(6) Produce results that indicate 

whether individual students have 

attained the English language 

proficiency necessary to participate 

fully in academic instruction in English 

and meet or exceed college- and careerready standards; 

(7) Provide at least an annual measure 

of English language proficiency and 

student progress in learning English for 

English learners in grades kindergarten 

through 12 in each of the four language 

domains; 

(8) Assess all English learners, 

including English learners who are also 

students with disabilities and students 

with limited or no formal education, 

except for English learners with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities 

who are eligible to participate in 

alternate assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards; and 

(9) Be accessible to all English 

learners, including by providing 

appropriate accommodations for English 

learners with disabilities, except for 

English learners with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities who are 

eligible to participate in alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards. 

(b) Technical Quality. The assessment 

system must measure students’ English 

language proficiency in ways that— 

(1) Are consistent with nationally 

recognized professional and technical 

standards; and 

(2) As appropriate, elicit complex 

student demonstrations of 

comprehension and production of 

academic English (e.g., performance 

tasks, selected responses, brief or 

extended constructed responses). 

(c) Data. The assessment system must 

produce data, that— 

(1) Include student attainment of 

English language proficiency and 

student progress in learning English, 

(2) Indicate students’ abilities in each 

of the four language domains and 

provide a comprehensive English 

language proficiency score based on all 

four domains, for students at each 

proficiency level; and 

(3) Can be used to inform— 

(i) Identification of students as 

English learners; 

(ii) Decisions about whether a student 

should exit from English language 

instruction educational programs; 

(iii) Determinations of school, local 

educational agency (LEA), and State 

effectiveness for the purposes of 

accountability under Title I and Title III 

of the ESEA; 

(iv) Determinations of individual 

principal and teacher effectiveness for 

purposes of evaluation; 

(v) Determinations of principal and 

teacher professional development and 

support needs; and 

(vi) Improvement in teaching, 

learning, and language instruction 

education programs. 

(d) Compatibility. The assessment 

system must use compatible approaches 

to technology, assessment 

administration, scoring, reporting, and 

other factors that facilitate the coherent 

inclusion of the assessments within 

States’ student assessment systems. 

(e) Students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. The 

comprehensive plan to develop an 

English language proficiency assessment 

system must include the strategies the 

applicant State and, if the applicant is 

part of a consortium, all States in the 

consortium plan to use to assess the 

English language proficiency of English 

learners with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities who are eligible to 

participate in alternate assessments 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards in accordance 

with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2) in lieu of 

including those students in the 

operational administration of the 

assessments developed for other English 

learners under a grant from this 

competition. 

Proposed Priority 2—Collaborative 

Efforts Among States. 

Background: 

Two consortia of States are 

collaborating under the RTTA program 

to develop new assessment systems that 

measure student knowledge and skills 

against a common set of college- and 

career-ready standards in English 

language arts and mathematics. States 

also have indicated to the Department 

their interest in continuing to work 

together in consortia to develop 

assessments aligned to common 

standards. Because of the complexity of 

developing and implementing 

assessments and other assessmentrelated instruments, collaborative efforts 

between and among States can yield 

approaches that build on each State’s 

expertise and experience as well as 

approaches that generate efficiencies in 

development, administration, costs, and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 1141 

uses of results. In previous competitions 

for EAG funds, which also included a 

priority for collaboration among States, 

States often responded by proposing 

consortia to complete a range of 

projects. In light of the interest among 

States, the benefits of collaboration, and 

the prior practice within the EAG 

program, the Department also proposes 

a priority for projects that involve 

collaborative efforts among States. 

Proposed Priority: 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must— 

(a) Include a minimum of 15 States in 

the consortium; 

(b) Identify in its application a 

proposed project management partner 

and provide an assurance that the 

proposed project management partner is 

not partnered with any other eligible 

applicant applying for an award under 

this competition; 

(c) Provide a description of the 

consortium’s structure and operation. 

The description must include— 

(1) The organizational structure of the 

consortium (e.g., differentiated roles 

that a member State may hold); 

(2) The consortium’s method and 

process (e.g., consensus, majority) for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational); 

(3) The protocols by which the 

consortium will operate, including the 

protocols for member States to change 

roles in the consortium; 

(4) The consortium’s plan, including 

the process and timeline, for setting key 

policies and definitions for 

implementing the proposed project, 

including, for any assessments 

developed through a project funded by 

this grant, the common set of standards 

upon which to base the assessments, a 

common set of performance-level 

descriptors, a common set of 

achievement standards, common 

assessment administration procedures, 

common item-release and test-security 

policies, and a common set of policies 

and procedures for accommodations 

and student participation; and 

(5) The consortium’s plan for 

managing grant funds received under 

this competition; and 

(d) Provide a memorandum of 

understanding or other binding 

agreement executed by each State in the 

consortium that includes an assurance 

that the State will adopt or utilize any 

instrument, including to the extent 

applicable, any standards or 

assessments, developed under the 

proposed project no later than the end 

of the project period. 

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)). 

PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS: 

Background: 

Like the priorities and selection 

criteria that we are proposing in this 

notice for the EAG program, the 

proposed program requirements for this 

program are closely aligned with those 

that we established for the RTTA 

program. These proposed requirements 

have been designed to ensure that any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed under a grant for 

this program are operational by the end 

of the grant period, meet high standards 

of technical quality, and use the benefits 

of technology as well as enable widespread availability and usability of the 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed. 

Proposed Requirements: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for this program. We may 

apply one or more of these requirements 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. An eligible applicant awarded a 

grant under this program must— 

(a) Evaluate the validity, reliability, 

and fairness of any assessments or other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed under a grant from this 

competition, and make available 

documentation of evaluations of 

technical quality through formal 

mechanisms (e.g., peer-reviewed 

journals) and informal mechanisms 

(e.g., newsletters), both in print and 

electronically; 

(b) Actively participate in any 

applicable technical assistance activities 

conducted or facilitated by the 

Department or its designees (e.g., the 

RTTA program), and participate in other 

activities as determined by the 

Department; 

(c) Develop a strategy to make 

student-level data that result from any 

assessments or other assessment-related 

instruments developed under a grant 

from this competition available on an 

ongoing basis for research, including for 

prospective linking, validity, and 

program improvement studies; 

(d) Ensure that any assessments or 

other assessment-related instruments 

developed under a grant from this 

competition will be operational at the 

end of the project period (e.g., ready for 

large-scale administration); 

(e) Maximize the interoperability of 

any assessments and other assessmentrelated instruments developed with 

funds from this competition across 

technology platforms and the ability for 

States to move their assessments from 

one technology platform to another by 

doing the following, as applicable, for 

any assessments developed with funds 

from this competition— 

(1) Developing all assessment items in 

accordance with an industry-recognized 

open-licensed interoperability standard 

that is approved by the Department 

during the grant period, without nonstandard extensions or additions; and 

(2) Producing all student-level data in 

a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period; 

(f) Unless otherwise protected by law 

or agreement as proprietary information, 

making any assessment content (i.e., 

assessments and assessment items) and 

other assessment-related instruments 

developed with funds from this 

competition freely available to States, 

technology platform providers, and 

others that request it for purposes of 

administering assessments, provided 

that those requesting assessment content 

comply with consortium or State 

requirements for test or item security; 

and 

(g) For any assessments and other 

assessment-related instruments 

developed with funds from this 

competition, using technology to the 

maximum extent appropriate to 

develop, administer, and score the 

assessments and report results. 

Proposed Definitions: 

Background: 

Several important terms associated 

with the EAG program’s proposed 

priorities and selection criteria are not 

defined in the EAG statute. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for the EAG program. We 

may apply one or more of these 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1142 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Common set of college- and careerready standards means a set of 

academic content standards for grades 

K–12 held in common by a significant 

number of States, that (a) define what a 

student must know and be able to do at 

each grade level; (b) if mastered, would 

ensure that the student is college- and 

career-ready by the time of high school 

graduation; and (c) for any consortium 

of States applying under the EAG 

program, are substantially identical 

across all States in the consortium. 

A State in the consortium may 

supplement the common set of collegeand career-ready standards with 

additional content standards, provided 

that the additional standards do not 

comprise more than 15 percent of the 

State’s total standards for that content 

area. 

English learner means a student who 

is an English learner as defined by the 

applicant consistent with the definition 

of a student who is ‘‘limited English 

proficient’’ as that term is defined in 

section 9101(25) of the ESEA. If the 

applicant submits an application on 

behalf of a consortium, member States 

must develop and adopt a uniform 

definition of the term during the period 

of the grant. 

Student with a disability means a 

student who has been identified as a 

child with a disability under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, as amended. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

Background: 

We expect that any assessments 

funded under this competition will be 

of similar technical quality to those 

funded under the RTTA program. 

Therefore, the proposed selection 

criteria are adapted from the selection 

criteria that the Department used to 

review applications under that program. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting applications 

or the application package or both we 

will announce the selection criteria to 

be applied and the maximum possible 

points assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Theory of action. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s theory of action is logical, 

coherent, and credible, and will result 

in improved student outcomes. In 

determining the extent to which the 

theory of action has these attributes, we 

will consider the description of, and 

rationale for— 

(1) How the assessment results will be 

used (e.g., at the State, LEA, school, 

classroom, and student levels); 

(2) How the assessments and 

assessment results will be incorporated 

into coherent educational systems of the 

State(s) participating in the grant (i.e., 

systems that include standards, 

assessments, curriculum, instruction, 

and professional development); and 

(3) How those educational systems as 

a whole will improve student 

achievement. 

(b) Assessment design. The Secretary 

reviews each application to determine 

the extent to which the design of the 

eligible applicant’s proposed 

assessments is innovative, feasible, and 

consistent with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

design has these attributes, we will 

consider— 

(1) The number and types of 

assessments, as appropriate (e.g., 

diagnostic assessments, summative 

assessments); 

(2) How the assessments will measure 

student knowledge and skills against the 

full range of the relevant standards, 

including the standards against which 

student achievement has traditionally 

been difficult to measure, provide an 

accurate measure of student proficiency 

on those standards, including for 

students who are high- and lowperforming in academic areas, and 

provide an accurate measure of student 

progress in the relevant area over a full 

academic year; 

(3) How the assessments will produce 

the required student performance data, 

as described in the priority; 

(4) How and when during the 

academic year different types of student 

data will be available to inform and 

guide instruction, interventions, and 

professional development; 

(5) The types of data that will be 

produced by the assessments, which 

must include student achievement data 

and other data specified in the relevant 

priority; 

(6) The uses of the data that will be 

produced by the assessments, including 

(but not limited to)— 

(i) Determining individual student 

achievement and student progress; 

determining individual principal and 

teacher effectiveness, if applicable, and 

professional development and support 

needs; 

(ii) Informing teaching, learning, and 

program improvement; and 

(7) The frequency and timing of 

administration of the assessments, and 

the rationale for these; 

(8) The number and types of items 

(e.g., performance tasks, selected 

responses, observational rating, brief or 

extended constructed responses) and 

the distribution of item types within the 

assessments, including the extent to 

which the items will be varied and elicit 

complex student demonstrations or 

applications of knowledge, skills, and 

approaches to learning, as appropriate 

(descriptions should include a concrete 

example of each item type proposed); 

and the rationale for using these item 

types and their distributions; 

(9) The assessments’ administration 

mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil, teacher 

rating, computer-based, or other 

electronic device), and the rationale for 

the mode; 

(10) The methods for scoring student 

performance on the assessments, the 

estimated turnaround times for scoring, 

and the rationale for these; and 

(11) The reports that will be produced 

based on the assessments, and for each 

report, its intended use, target audience 

(e.g., students, parents, teachers, 

administrators, policymakers), and the 

key data it will present. 

(c) Assessment development plan. 

The Secretary reviews each application 

to determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s plan for developing 

the proposed assessments will ensure 

that the assessments are ready by the 

end of the grant period for wide-scale 

administration in a manner that is 

timely, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the proposed design and 

incorporates a process for ongoing 

feedback and improvement. In 

determining the extent to which the 

assessment development plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1)(i) The approaches for developing 

assessment items (e.g., evidencecentered design, universal design) and 

the rationale for using those approaches; 

and the development phases and 

processes to be implemented consistent 

with the approaches; and 

(ii) The types of personnel involved in 

each development phase and process 

(e.g., practitioners, content experts, 

assessment experts, experts in assessing 

English learners, linguists, experts in 

second language acquisition, experts in 

assessing students with disabilities, 

psychometricians, cognitive scientists, 

institution of higher education 

representatives, experts on career 

readiness standards); 

(2) The approach and strategy for 

designing and developing 

accommodations, accommodation 

policies, and methods for standardizing 

the use of those accommodations for 

students with disabilities; 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 1143 

(3) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of items, including 

the approach and moderation system for 

any human-scored items and the extent 

to which teachers are trained and 

involved in the administration and 

scoring of assessments; 

(4) The approach and strategy for 

developing the reporting system; and 

(5) The overall approach to quality 

control and the strategy for field-testing 

assessment items, accommodations, 

scoring systems, and reporting systems, 

including, with respect to assessment 

items and accommodations, the use of 

representative sampling of all types of 

student populations, taking into 

particular account high- and lowperforming students and different types 

of English learners and students with 

disabilities. 

(d) Research and evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s research and 

evaluation plan will ensure that the 

assessments developed are valid, 

reliable, and fair for their intended 

purposes. In determining the extent to 

which the research and evaluation plan 

has these attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The plan for identifying and 

employing psychometric techniques 

suitable for verifying, as appropriate to 

each assessment, its construct, 

consequential, and predictive validity; 

external validity; reliability; fairness; 

precision across the full performance 

continuum; and comparability within 

and across grade levels; and 

(2) The plan for determining whether 

the assessments are being implemented 

as designed and the theory of action is 

being realized, including whether the 

intended effects on individuals and 

institutions are being achieved. 

(e) Professional capacity and 

outreach. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine the extent to 

which the eligible applicant’s plan for 

implementing the proposed assessments 

is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

implementation plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(1) The plan for supporting teachers 

and administrators in implementing the 

assessments and for developing, in an 

ongoing manner, their professional 

capacity to use the assessments and 

results to inform and improve 

instructional practice; and 

(2) The strategy and plan for 

informing the public and key 

stakeholders (including teachers, 

administrators, families, legislators, and 

policymakers) in each State or in each 

member State within a consortium 

about the assessments and for building 

support from the public and those 

stakeholders. 

(f) Technology approach. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant would use technology 

effectively to improve the quality, 

accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and 

efficiency of the proposed assessments. 

In determining the extent to which the 

eligible applicant is using technology 

effectively, we will consider—— 

(1) The description of, and rationale 

for, the ways in which technology will 

be used in assessment design, 

development, administration, scoring, 

and reporting; the types of technology to 

be used (including whether the 

technology is existing and commercially 

available or is being newly developed); 

and how other States or organizations 

can re-use in a cost-effective manner 

any technology platforms and 

technology components developed 

under this grant; and 

(2) How technology-related 

implementation or deployment barriers 

will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to 

local access to internet-based 

assessments). 

(g) Project management. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine the extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s project management 

plan will result in implementation of 

the proposed assessments on time, 

within budget, and in a manner that is 

financially sustainable over time. In 

determining the extent to which the 

project management plan has these 

attributes, we will consider—— 

(1) The project workplan and 

timeline, including, for each key 

deliverable (e.g., necessary 

procurements and any needed approvals 

for human subjects research, 

assessment, scoring and moderation 

system, professional development 

activities), the major milestones, 

deadlines, and entities responsible for 

execution; 

(2) The approach to identifying, 

managing, and mitigating risks 

associated with the project; 

(3) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s budget is adequate to 

support the development of assessments 

that meet the requirements of the 

priority and includes costs that are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and significance of the proposed 

project and the number of students to be 

served; 

(4) For each applicant State or for 

each member State within a consortium, 

the estimated costs for the ongoing 

administration, maintenance, and 

enhancement of the operational 

assessments after the end of the project 

period for the grant and a plan for how 

the State will fund the assessments over 

time (including by allocating to the 

assessments funds for existing State or 

local assessments that will be replaced 

by the new assessments); and 

(5) The quality and commitment of 

the personnel who will carry out the 

proposed project, including the 

qualifications, relevant training and 

experience of the project director and 

other key project personnel, and the 

extent to which the time commitments 

of the project director and other key 

project personnel are appropriate and 

adequate to meet the objectives of the 

proposed project. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: 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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. The Secretary has determined 

that this regulatory action is not 

significant under section 3(f) of the 

Executive Order. 

This notice has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

Under the terms of the order, we have 

assessed the potential costs and benefits 

of this proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

More specifically, Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA requires States to annually assess 

the English language proficiency of 

English learners. The English language 

proficiency assessment systems to be 

developed under the proposed priority 

would be available for use by multiple 

States and could be used by States to 

meet their obligations under Title I, Part 

A. In addition, the requirements that the 

assessments be based on a set of English 

language proficiency standards held by 

the applicant State and, if the applicant 

applies as part of a consortium, held in 

common by all States in the consortium, 

that correspond to a common set of 

college- and career-ready standards in 

English language arts and mathematics 

would result in States that adopt the 

assessments being able to collect 

comparable data regarding the English 

language proficiency of their English 

learners. The proposed selection criteria 

would help ensure that the assessments 

developed by grantees are of high 

quality, meet relevant technical 

standards, and align with other 

assessment work funded by the 

Department. The proposed priority for 

consortia would encourage States to 

work together on developing 

assessments and other assessmentrelated instruments rather than 

developing or using separate 

assessments, thus creating cost 

efficiencies. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

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 this program. 

Accessible Format: 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 persons listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition and the Code of Federal Regulations 

is available on GPO Access at: http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.368A. 

Dated: January 4, 2011. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–130 Filed 1–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP11–51–000] 

CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River 

Transmission Corporation; Notice of 

Application 

December 29, 2010. 

Take notice that on December 15, 

2010, CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi 

River Transmission Corporation (MRT), 

1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 

77002–5231, filed in Docket No. CP11– 

51–000, an application pursuant to 

section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act 

requesting authorization to reclassify 

approximately 1.2 billion cubic feet 

(Bcf) of cushion gas to working gas in 

the East and West Unionville Storage 

Fields located in Lincoln Parish, 

Louisiana. MRT states that the Inventory 

Verification Study disclosed a 

difference of approximately 1.2 Bcf less 

cushion gas than the accounting 

records. MRT avers that the differences 

were due to surface measurement and 

valve leakage. MRT affirms that no 

customer service will be impacted as a 

result of the reclassification, all as more 

fully set forth in the application, which 

is on file with the Commission and open 

to public inspection. The filing may also 

be viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (866) 208–3676 or TTY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Any questions regarding this 

application should be directed to 

Lawrence O. Thomas, Sr. Director-Rate 

& Regulatory, CenterPoint Energy 

Mississippi River Transmission 

Corporation, P.O. Box 21734, 

Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, telephone 

No. (318) 429–2804, facsimile No. (318) 

429–3133, and e-mail: 

larry.thomas@centerpointenergy.com. 

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the 

Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, 

within 90 days of this Notice the 

Commission staff will either: Complete 

its environmental assessment (EA) and 

place it into the Commission’s public 

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or 

issue a Notice of Schedule for 

Environmental Review. If a Notice of 

Schedule for Environmental Review is 

issued, it will indicate, among other 

milestones, the anticipated date for the 

Commission staff’s issuance of the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

or EA for this proposal. The filing of the 

EA in the Commission’s public record 

for this proceeding or the issuance of a 

Notice of Schedule for Environmental 

Review will serve to notify federal and 

state agencies of the timing for the 

completion of all necessary reviews, and 

the subsequent need to complete all 

federal authorizations within 90 days of 

the date of issuance of the Commission 

staff’s FEIS or EA. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below, file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES