Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Notices 56183 

NATO SEASPARROW Surface Missile 

Systems (NSSMS) without RIM–7 missiles, 

MK57 Installation and Check Out (INCO) 

Kits, spare and repair parts, support and test 

equipment, publications and technical 

documentation, personnel training, U.S. 

Government (USG) and contractor 

engineering, technical and logistics support 

services, and other related elements of 

logistical and program support. The 

estimated cost is $50 million. 

This proposed sale will contribute to the 

foreign policy and national security of the 

United States by helping to improve the 

security of Peru which has been, and 

continues to be, an important force for 

political stability and economic progress in 

South America. 

The proposed sale will improve Peru’s 

capability to meet current and future threats 

of enemy anti-ship weapons. Peru will use 

the enhanced capability of the MK57 MOD 

10 NSSMS on its four LUPO class (aka 

Aguirre) Class frigates purchased from Italy 

in 2004. The frigates have MK57 MOD 2 

NATO SEASPARROW Systems modified to 

fire the ASPIDE air defense missile. The 

systems retain the ability to fire the RIM–7 

SEASPARROW missile, and Peru intends to 

move from the ASPIDE missile to the RIM– 

7 SEASPARROW in a future purchase. Peru, 

which already has MK 57 Missile Systems, 

will have no difficulty absorbing these 

additional systems into its inventory. 

The proposed sale of this equipment will 

not alter the basic military balance in the 

region. 

The prime contractors will be Raytheon 

Technical Service Company in Norfolk, VA 

and Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in 

Portsmouth, RI. There are no known offset 

agreements proposed in connection with this 

potential sale. 

Implementation of this proposed sale will 

not require the assignment of any additional 

U.S. Government or contractor 

representatives to Peru. 

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. 

defense readiness as a result of this proposed 

sale. 

Transmittal No. 11–14 

Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer 

Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms 

Export Control Act, as amended 

Annex 

Item No. vii 

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 

1. The sale of the MK 57 Mod 10 NSSMs 

under this proposed sale will result in the 

transfer of sensitive technological 

information to Peru. Both classified and 

unclassified defense equipment will be 

involved. Specifically, the MK 73 Mod 3 

Solid State Transmitter is Secret and contains 

sensitive technology. 

2. If a technologically advanced adversary 

were to obtain knowledge of the specific 

hardware and software elements, the 

information could be used to develop 

countermeasures that might reduce weapon 

system effectiveness or be used in the 

development of a system with similar or 

advanced capabilities. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23181 Filed 9–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

RIN 1894–AA01 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OS–0008] 

Race to the Top Fund Phase 3 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) proposes requirements for 

Phase 3 of the Race to the Top program. 

In this phase the Department would 

make awards to States that were finalists 

but did not receive funding under the 

Race to the Top Fund Phase 2 

competition held in fiscal year (FY) 

2010. We take this action to specify the 

information and assurances that 

applicants must provide in order to 

receive funding under the Race to the 

Top Fund Phase 3 award process. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before October 12, 2011. 

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 

‘‘Race to the Top Fund Phase 3 Awards’’ 

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.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

requirements, address them to the 

Implementation and Support Unit 

(Attention: Race to the Top Fund Phase 

3 Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–6200. 

• 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: 

Meredith Farace, Implementation and 

Support Unit, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20202–6200. 

Telephone: (202) 401–8368 or by e-mail: 

phase3comments@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: 

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 requirements, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed requirement that each 

comment addresses. 

We invite you also to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and Executive Order 13563 and their 

overall direction to Federal agencies to 

reduce regulatory burden where 

possible. 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 this 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 public comments in person in room 

7E208, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC 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 Race to the 

Top program, the largest competitive 

education grant program in U.S. history, 

is designed to provide incentives to 

States to implement system-changing 

reforms that result in improved student 

achievement, narrowed achievement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

56184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Notices 

gaps, and increased high school 

graduation and college enrollment rates. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), Division A, Section 14006, 

Public Law 111–5, as amended by 

section 310 of Division D, Title III of 

Public Law 111–117, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010, and section 

1832(a)(2) of Public Law 112–10, the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. 

(Note: In the ARRA, the Race to the Top 

program is referred to as State Incentive 

Grants.) 

Proposed Requirements: 

Background 

On February 17, 2009, President 

Obama signed into law the ARRA, 

historic legislation designed to stimulate 

the economy, support job creation, and 

invest in critical sectors, including 

education. The ARRA laid the 

foundation for education reform by 

supporting investments in innovative 

strategies that are most likely to lead to 

improved results for students, long-term 

gains in school and school system 

capacity, and increased productivity 

and effectiveness. In particular, the 

ARRA authorized and provided $4.35 

billion for the Race to the Top Fund, a 

competitive grant program designed to 

encourage and reward States creating 

the conditions for education innovation 

and reform by implementing ambitious 

plans in four core areas: Enhancing 

standards and assessments, improving 

the collection and use of data, 

increasing teacher effectiveness and 

achieving equity in teacher distribution, 

and turning around struggling schools. 

In 2010, the Department awarded 

approximately $4 billion in Race to the 

Top State grant funds in two phases. On 

March 29, 2010, the Department 

announced the award of approximately 

$600 million to Delaware and Tennessee 

under the Race to the Top Phase 1 

competition. On August 24, 2010, the 

Department announced the award of 

approximately $3.4 billion in Race to 

the Top funding to the winners of the 

Phase 2 competition: the District of 

Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, 

North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. 

In addition to these awards to States to 

implement comprehensive reform plans, 

the Department awarded approximately 

$330 million on September 2, 2010, 

under a separate Race to the Top 

Assessment competition, to two groups 

of States to develop a new generation of 

assessments aligned with a common set 

of college- and career-ready standards. 

In announcing the winners of the 

Phase 2 competition, the Secretary 

noted that ‘‘[we] had many more 

competitive applications than money to 

fund them in this round’’ and expressed 

the hope that any Race to the Top 

funding included in the Department’s 

FY 2011 appropriations would be 

available for Phase 3 Race to the Top 

awards. In particular, there were nine 

finalists in the Phase 2 competition held 

in the summer of 2010 that did not 

receive funding despite submitting bold 

and ambitious plans for comprehensive 

reforms and innovations in their 

systems of elementary and secondary 

education. These nine finalists were 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. 

On April 15, 2011, President Obama 

signed into law Public Law 112–10, the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(FY 2011 Appropriations Act), which 

made $698.6 million available for the 

Race to the Top Fund, authorized the 

Secretary to make awards on ‘‘the basis 

of previously submitted applications,’’ 

and amended the ARRA to permit the 

Secretary to make grants for improving 

early childhood care and learning under 

the program. On May 25, 2011, the 

Department announced that 

approximately $500 million of these 

funds would support the new Race to 

the Top—Early Learning Challenge 

program and that approximately $200 

million would be made available to 

some or all of the nine unfunded 

finalists from the 2010 Race to the Top 

Phase 2 competition. While $200 

million is not sufficient to support full 

implementation of the plans submitted 

during the Phase 2 competition, the 

Department believes that making these 

funds available to the remaining nine 

finalists is the best way to create 

incentives for these States to carry out 

the bold reforms proposed in their 

applications. The Department may use 

any unused funds from Race to the Top 

Phase 3 to make awards in the Race to 

the Top—Early Learning Challenge 

program. Conversely, the Department 

may use any unused funds from the 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge program to make awards for 

Race to the Top Phase 3. 

In this notice, we propose specific 

requirements that would apply to Race 

to the Top Phase 3 awards. To receive 

a share of the approximately $200 

million in Race to the Top Phase 3 

funds, eligible applicants would need to 

meet these requirements. 

As with Race to the Top Phase 1 and 

Phase 2, it is the Department’s intent to 

encourage and reward States that are 

creating and maintaining conditions for 

education innovation and reform; 

achieving significant improvement in 

student outcomes, including making 

substantial gains in student 

achievement, closing achievement gaps, 

improving high school graduation rates, 

ensuring student preparation for success 

in college and careers; and 

implementing ambitious plans in the 

following four core education reform 

areas: 

(a) Adopting internationally 

benchmarked standards and 

assessments that prepare students for 

success in college and the workplace; 

(b) Building data systems that 

measure student success and inform 

teachers and principals about how they 

can improve their practices; 

(c) Increasing teacher and principal 

effectiveness and achieving equity in 

the distribution of effective teachers and 

principals; and 

(d) Turning around our lowest 

achieving schools. 

Under the Race to the Top Phase 3 

award process proposed in this notice, 

eligible applicants would be limited to 

Race to the Top Phase 2 finalists that 

did not receive a Phase 2 award, and 

those eligible applicants could apply for 

a proportional share of these funds. 

Race to the Top Phase 3 funding is not 

at the level of funding that was available 

for the Race to the Top Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 competitions. Accordingly, we 

are proposing that eligible applicants (1) 

select from among the activities they 

proposed to implement in their Phase 2 

applications those activities that will 

have the greatest impact on advancing 

their overall statewide reform plans, (2) 

use Race to the Top Phase 3 funding to 

support those specific activities, and (3) 

ensure that such activities are consistent 

with the ARRA requirement to allocate 

50 percent of Race to the Top funds to 

local educational agencies (LEAs). 

We are further proposing to require 

that an eligible applicant provide a set 

of assurances reaffirming its 

commitment to maintain, at a minimum, 

the conditions for reform that it 

established in its Phase 2 application in 

each of the four core education reform 

areas. These assurances reflect the 

importance of the State’s dedication to 

successfully implementing the 

comprehensive statewide reforms 

envisioned under the Race to the Top 

program. 

These proposed requirements also 

include a requirement that an applicant 

provide an assurance that the State is in 

compliance with the Education Jobs 

Fund maintenance-of-effort (MOE) 

requirement in section 101(10)(A) of 

Public Law 111–226. The MOE 

requirement under the Education Jobs 

Fund program is more stringent in some 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Notices 56185 

respects than the MOE requirement 

under the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund (SFSF) program. Unlike the SFSF 

MOE requirement, which in some cases 

may allow a State to maintain overall 

levels of support for education while 

actually reducing funding for either 

elementary and secondary education or 

for public institutions of higher 

education (IHEs), a State can meet the 

Education Jobs Fund MOE requirement 

only by maintaining support for both 

elementary and secondary education 

and public IHEs. For this reason, we 

believe that the Education Jobs Fund 

MOE requirement is a better measure of 

whether a State is demonstrating the 

commitment to funding education 

needed to create the conditions for 

education innovation and reform 

consistent with the Race to the Top 

program. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for Race to the Top 

awards. Except where otherwise 

indicated in this notice of proposed 

requirements, the applicable final 

requirements and definitions of key 

terms from the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, published in the Federal 

Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR 

59688) apply to the Race to the Top 

Phase 3 application process. 

I. Proposed Award Process 

The Department proposes to make 

awards through a two-part process. 

Under the first part of this process, 

States that meet the eligibility 

requirements would submit an 

application that (1) meets the 

application requirements and (2) 

provides the application assurances. 

Under the second part of the Race to 

the Top Phase 3 application process, the 

Department would notify all eligible 

applicants that met the application 

requirements and provided the 

assurances required by the first part of 

the process, and would provide an 

estimate of the Race to the Top Phase 3 

funds available to them based on the 

number of qualified applicants. 

Qualified applicants would then be 

required to submit, for review and 

approval by the Secretary, a detailed 

plan and budget describing the activities 

selected from the State’s Phase 2 

application that would be implemented 

with Race to the Top Phase 3 funding 

in accordance with the Budget 

Requirements in this notice. 

II. Proposed Eligibility Requirements 

States that were finalists, but did not 

receive grant awards, in the 2010 Race 

to the Top Phase 2 competition are 

eligible to receive Race to the Top Phase 

3 awards. Therefore, only the States of 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina are 

eligible to apply for Race to the Top 

Phase 3 awards. 

III. Proposed Application Requirements 

A State must submit an application 

that includes the signatures of the 

Governor, the State’s chief school 

officer, and the president of the State 

board of education, or their authorized 

representatives (if applicable). 

IV. Proposed Application Assurances 

The Governor or authorized 

representative of the Governor of a State 

must provide the following assurances 

in the State’s Race to the Top Phase 3 

application: 

(a) The State is in compliance with 

the Education Jobs Fund maintenanceof-effort (MOE) requirements in section 

101(10)(A) of Public Law 111–226. 

(b) The State is in compliance with 

the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Phase 2 requirements with respect to 

Indicator (b)(1) regarding the State’s 

statewide longitudinal data system. (See 

notice of final requirements, definitions, 

and approval criteria for the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund Program published 

in the Federal Register on November 12, 

2009 (74 FR 58436).) 

(c) At the time the State submits its 

application, there are no legal, statutory, 

or regulatory barriers at the State level 

to linking data on student achievement 

or student growth to teachers and 

principals for the purpose of teacher 

and principal evaluation. 

(d) The State will maintain its 

commitment to improving the quality of 

its assessments, evidenced by the State’s 

participation in a consortium of States 

that— 

(i) Is working toward jointly 

developing and implementing common, 

high-quality assessments aligned with 

the consortium’s common set of K–12 

standards; and 

(ii) Includes a significant number of 

States. 

(e) The State will maintain, at a 

minimum, the conditions for reform 

described in its Race to the Top Phase 

2 application, including— 

(i) The State’s adoption and 

implementation of a common set of 

college- and career-ready standards, as 

specified in section (B)(1)(ii) of the 

State’s Race to the Top Phase 2 

application; 

(ii) The State’s statutory and 

regulatory framework related to 

improving teacher and school leader 

effectiveness and ensuring an equitable 

distribution of effective teachers and 

leaders, as described in section D of the 

State’s Race to the Top Phase 2 

application; 

(iii) The State’s statutory and 

regulatory framework for implementing 

effective school and LEA turnaround 

measures, as described in section E of 

the State’s Race to the Top Phase 2 

application; and 

(iv) The State’s statutory and 

regulatory framework for supporting the 

creation and expansion of highperforming charter schools and other 

innovative schools, as described in 

section (F)(2) of its Race to the Top 

Phase 2 application. 

(f) The State will maintain its 

commitment to comprehensive reforms 

and innovation designed to increase 

student achievement and to continued 

progress in the four reform areas 

specified in the ARRA, including the 

adoption and implementation of 

internationally benchmarked standards 

and assessments, improving the 

collection and use of data, increasing 

teacher effectiveness and equity in the 

distribution of effective teachers, and 

turning around the State’s lowest 

achieving schools. 

(g) The State will select activities for 

funding that are consistent with the 

commitment to comprehensive reform 

and innovation that the State 

demonstrated in its Race to the Top 

Phase 2 application. 

(h) The State will comply with all of 

the accountability, transparency, and 

reporting requirements that apply to the 

Race to the Top program (See the notice 

of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

Race to the Top Fund published in the 

Federal Register on November 18, 2009 

(74 FR 59688)), with the exception of 

reporting requirements applicable solely 

to funds provided under the ARRA. 

(Note: The ARRA section 1512 reporting 

requirements do not apply to the funds 

we will award under the Race to the 

Top Phase 3 award process). 

(i) A grantee must comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation of the 

program, or of specific activities 

pursued as part of the program, 

conducted and supported by the 

Department. 

V. Proposed Budget Requirements 

An eligible applicant must apply for 

a proportional share of the 

approximately $200 million available 

for Race to the Top Phase 3 awards 

based primarily on its share of the 

population of children ages 5 through 

17 across the nine States. The proposed 

estimated amounts for which each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

56186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Notices 

eligible State could apply are shown in 

the following table. The amounts 

proposed in this table are based on the 

assumption that all eligible States 

would apply for a share of available 

funding; the amounts would increase if 

one or more eligible States do not apply 

or do not meet the application 

requirements. 

State Amount 

Colorado ............................. $12,250,000 

Louisiana ............................ 12,250,000 

South Carolina .................... 12,250,000 

Kentucky ............................. 12,250,000 

Arizona ................................ 17,500,000 

Illinois .................................. 28,000,000 

Pennsylvania ...................... 28,000,000 

New Jersey ......................... 28,000,000 

California ............................. 49,000,000 

Once the Department notifies a 

qualified applicant of the final amount 

of funds it is eligible to receive for a 

Race to the Top Phase 3 award, the 

applicant must submit a detailed plan 

and budget describing the activities it 

has selected from its Race to the Top 

Phase 2 application that it proposes to 

implement with Race to the Top Phase 

3 funding. This detailed plan must 

include an explanation of why the 

applicant has selected these activities 

and why the applicant believes such 

activities will have the greatest impact 

on advancing its overall statewide 

reform plan. The plan also must include 

a description of the State’s process for 

allocating at least 50 percent of Race to 

the Top Phase 3 funds to participating 

LEAs, as required by section 14006(c) of 

the ARRA. Subgrants to LEAs must be 

based on their relative shares of funding 

under Title I, Part A of the ESEA, and 

LEAs must use these funds in a manner 

that is consistent with the State’s 

updated plan and the MOU or other 

binding agreement between the LEA and 

the State. A State may establish more 

specific requirements for LEA use of 

funds provided they are consistent with 

the ARRA and Race to the Top 

requirements. (See the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for the Race to the Top 

Fund published in the Federal Register 

on November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59688)) 

Final Requirements 

We will announce the final 

requirements for the Race to the Top 

Phase 3 award process in a notice in the 

Federal Register. We will determine the 

final requirements after considering any 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice and other information available 

to the Department. This notice does not 

preclude the Department 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 requirements we 

invite applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

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 

order. 

It has been determined that this 

regulatory action will have an annual 

effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million because the amount of 

government transfers through the Race 

to the Top Phase 3 award process 

exceeds that amount. Therefore, this 

action is economically significant and 

subject to OMB review under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits justify the costs. 

The Department has also reviewed 

these proposed requirements pursuant 

to Executive Order 13563, published on 

January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3821). 

Executive Order 13563 is supplemental 

to and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by Executive Order 13563 to: (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 their regulations 

to impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

We emphasize as well that Executive 

Order 13563 requires agencies ‘‘to use 

the best available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible.’’ In 

its February 2, 2011, memorandum (M– 

11–10) on Executive Order 13563, 

improving regulation and regulatory 

review, the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that 

such techniques may include 

‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

requirements only upon a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs and we selected, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis below, the Department believes 

that these final regulations are 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

In this section we discuss the need for 

regulatory action, the costs and benefits, 

as well as regulatory alternatives we 

considered. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These proposed requirements are 

needed to implement the Race to the 

Top Phase 3 award process in the 

manner that the Secretary believes will 

best enable the program to achieve its 

objectives of creating the conditions for 

effective reform and meaningful 

innovation in education while helping 

States that were finalists, but did not 

receive funding under the Race to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Notices 56187 

Top Phase 2 competition, to implement 

selected elements of their 

comprehensive reform proposals 

submitted as part of their Race to the 

Top Phase 2 applications. 

Potential Costs and Benefits 

Under Executive Order 12866, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action and 

have determined that these proposed 

requirements would not impose 

significant additional costs to State 

applicants or the Federal Government. 

Most of the proposed requirements 

involve re-affirming the commitments 

and plans already completed as part of 

the 2010 Race to the Top Phase 2 

competition or other Federal education 

programs. As an example of a 

requirement that would result in 

minimal additional burden and cost, we 

have proposed that States applying for 

Race to the Top Phase 3 funding provide 

an assurance that they are meeting the 

MOE requirements of the Education Jobs 

Fund program. Similarly, other 

proposed requirements, in particular 

those related to maintaining conditions 

for reform required under the Race to 

the Top Phase 2 competition, would 

require continuation of existing 

commitments and investments rather 

than the imposition of additional 

burdens and costs. For example, States 

would be required to continue 

implementation of common K–12 

academic content standards. The 

Department believes States would incur 

minimal costs in developing plans and 

budgets for implementing selected 

activities from their Race to the Top 

Phase 2 proposals, because in most 

cases such planning will entail revisions 

to existing plans and budgets already 

developed as part of the Race to the Top 

Phase 2 application process, and not the 

development and implementation of 

entirely new plans and budgets. In all 

such cases, the Department believes that 

the benefits resulting from the proposed 

requirements would exceed their costs. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

An alternative to promulgation of the 

types of requirements proposed in this 

notice would be for the Secretary to use 

FY 2011 Race to the Top funds to make 

awards to the one or two highest scoring 

unfunded applications from the 2010 

Race to the Top Phase 2 competition. 

However, the Department believes that 

the scores of the unfunded finalists from 

the Race to the Top Phase 2 competition 

are too closely grouped to support 

awarding all FY 2011 Race to the Top 

funds to the one or two States with the 

highest scores. Furthermore, the 

Department believes that the 

approximately $200 million available 

from the FY 2011 Appropriations Act 

for the Race to the Top program would 

not support full implementation of the 

comprehensive reform plans submitted 

by unfunded finalists from the 2010 

Race to the Top Phase 2 competition. 

The Department also believes that 

making available meaningful amounts of 

FY 2011 Race to the Top funding to all 

of the unfunded finalists from the 2010 

Race to the Top Phase 2 competition 

offers the greatest promise for sustaining 

the nationwide reform momentum 

created by the Race to the Top Phase 1 

and Phase 2 competitions. 

Finally, the Department believes that 

simply funding the one or two highest 

scoring applicants that did not win an 

award in the 2010 Race to the Top Phase 

2 competition would result in a missed 

opportunity to reward the efforts of all 

nine unfunded finalists from that 

competition and to enable them to make 

meaningful progress on key elements of 

their comprehensive statewide reform 

plans. 

To assist the Department in 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 

invites comments on whether there may 

be further opportunities to reduce any 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

requirements without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the Race to the Top program. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/

circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following 

table, we have prepared an accounting 

statement showing the classification of 

the expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this proposed regulatory 

action. This table provides our best 

estimate of the Federal payments to be 

made to States under this program as a 

result of this proposed regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to States. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$200,000,000 

From Whom to Whom? ..... Federal Government to 

States. 

The Race to the Top Phase 3 award 

process would provide approximately 

$200 million in competitive grants to 

eligible States. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These proposed regulations contain 

information collection requirements. 

However, because the eligible 

applicants for Race to the Top Phase 3 

awards are fewer than 10, these 

collections are not subject to approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i)). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs receiving funds under this 

program. 

This proposed 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. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small LEAs as to whether they believe 

this proposed regulatory action would 

have a significant economic impact on 

them and, if so, requests evidence to 

support that belief. 

Effect on Other Levels of Government 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Department invites 

comment on whether these 

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 proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

56188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Notices 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

The official version of this document 

is the document published in the 

Federal Register. Free Internet access to 

the official edition of the Federal 

Register is available via the Federal 

Digital System at 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 this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23123 Filed 9–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Tests Determined To Be Suitable for 

Use in the National Reporting System 

for Adult Education 

AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary annually 

announces tests, including test forms 

and delivery formats, determined to be 

suitable for use in the National 

Reporting System for Adult Education 

(NRS). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

LeMaster, Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11159, 

Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 

20202–7240. Telephone: (202) 245–6218 

or by e-mail: John.Lemaster@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: On 

January 14, 2008, the Secretary 

published in the Federal Register final 

regulations for 34 CFR part 462, 

Measuring Educational Gain in the 

National Reporting System for Adult 

Education (NRS regulations) (73 FR 

2306). The NRS regulations established 

the process the Secretary uses to 

determine the suitability of tests for use 

in the NRS. 

On April 16, 2008, the Secretary 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register providing test publishers an 

opportunity to submit tests for review 

under the NRS regulations. (73 FR 

20616). 

On February 2, 2010, the Secretary 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register listing the tests and test forms 

he determined were suitable for use in 

the NRS (75 FR 5303). 

Tests and test forms were determined 

to be suitable for a period of either 

seven or three years. A seven-year 

approval requires no additional action 

on the part of the publisher, unless the 

information the publisher submitted as 

a basis for the Secretary’s review was 

inaccurate or unless the test is 

substantially revised. A three-year 

approval is issued with a set of 

conditions that must be met by the 

completion of the three-year time 

period. If these conditions are met, the 

test is approved for continued use in the 

NRS. 

The Secretary publishes here an 

update to the list published on February 

2, 2010, that includes delivery formats. 

This update clarifies that some, but not 

all, tests using computer-adaptive or 

computer-based delivery formats are 

suitable for use in the NRS. The staffs 

of adult education programs are 

cautioned to ensure that only approved 

computer delivery formats are used. If a 

particular computer delivery format is 

not explicitly specified for a test in this 

notice, it is not approved for use in the 

NRS. 

Tests Determined To Be Suitable for 

Use in the NRS for Seven Years 

(a) The following test is determined to 

be suitable for use at all Adult Basic 

Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary 

Education (ASE) levels and at all 

English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) 

levels of the NRS for a period of seven 

years from February 2, 2010 (75 FR 

5303): 

Comprehensive Adult Student 

Assessment Systems (CASAS) Reading 

Assessments (Life and Work, Life Skills, 

Reading for Citizenship, Reading for 

Language Arts—Secondary Level). We 

are clarifying that the computer-based 

test (CBT) is an approved delivery 

format in addition to forms 27, 28, 81, 

82, 81X, 82X, 83, 84, 85, 86, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 310, 311, 513, 514, 951, 952, 

951X, and 952X. 

Publisher: CASAS, 5151 Murphy 

Canyon Road, Suite 220, San Diego, CA 

92123–4339. Telephone: (800) 255– 

1036. Internet: http://www.casas.org. 

(b) The following tests are determined 

to be suitable for use at all ABE and ASE 

levels of the NRS for a period of seven 

years from February 2, 2010 (75 FR 

5303): 

(1) Comprehensive Adult Student 

Assessment Systems (CASAS) Life Skills 

Math Assessments—Application of 

Mathematics (Secondary Level). We are 

clarifying that the computer-based test 

(CBT) is an approved delivery format in 

addition to forms 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 38, 505, and 506. Publisher: CASAS, 

5151 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 220, 

San Diego, CA 92123–4339. Telephone: 

(800) 255–1036. Internet: http:// 

www.casas.org. 

(2) Massachusetts Adult Proficiency 

Test (MAPT) for Math. We are clarifying 

that the computer-adaptive test (CAT) is 

an approved delivery format. Publisher: 

Massachusetts Department of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

and University of Massachusetts 

Amherst, School of Education, 156 Hills 

South, University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, MA 01003. Telephone: (413) 

545–0564. Internet: http:// 

www.sabes.org/assessment/mapt.htm. 

(3) Massachusetts Adult Proficiency 

Test (MAPT) for Reading. We are 

clarifying that the computer-adaptive 

test (CAT) is an approved delivery 

format. Publisher: Massachusetts 

Department of Elementary and 

Secondary Education and University of 

Massachusetts Amherst, School of 

Education, 156 Hills South, University 

of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. 

Telephone: (413) 545–0564. Internet: 

http://www.sabes.org/assessment/ 

mapt.htm. 

(4) Tests of Adult Basic Education 

(TABE 9/10). We are clarifying that the 

computer-based test (CBT) is an 

approved delivery format in addition to 

forms 9 and 10. Publisher: CTB/McGraw 

Hill, 20 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, 

CA 93940. Telephone: (800) 538–9547. 

Internet: http://www.ctb.com. 

(5) Tests of Adult Basic Education 

Survey (TABE Survey). We are clarifying 

that the computer-based test (CBT) is an 

approved delivery format in addition to 

forms 9 and 10. Publisher: CTB/McGraw 

Hill, 20 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, 

CA 93940. Telephone: (800) 538–9547. 

Internet: http://www.ctb.com. 

(c) The following tests are determined 

to be suitable for use at all ESL levels 

of the NRS for a period of seven years 

from February 2, 2010 (75 FR 5303): 

(1) BEST (Basic English Skills Test) 

Literacy. Forms B, C, and D. Publisher: 

Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 

40th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES