36958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.1157 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1157 Security Zone; Cruise Ships, 

Santa Barbara, California. 

(a) Location. The following areas are 

security zones: All navigable waters, 

from the surface to the sea floor within 

a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship 

located within 3 nautical miles of the 

Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light 

(Light List Number 3750; 34–24–17.364 

N, 119–41–16.260W). 

(b) Definition. ‘‘Cruise ship’’ as used 

in this section means any vessel, except 

for a ferry, over 100 feet in length, 

authorized to carry more than 12 

passengers for hire; making voyages 

lasting more than 24 hours, any part of 

which is on the high seas; and for which 

passengers are embarked or 

disembarked in the U.S. or its 

territories. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under general 

security zone regulations in subpart D, 

entry into or remaining in the zones 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section is prohibited unless authorized 

by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

(COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach (LA– 

LB), or a designated representative of 

COTP LA–LB. 

(2) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of the security zone may contact the 

COTP LA–LB at telephone number 1– 

310–521–3801 or on VHF–FM channel 

16 (156.800 MHz) to seek permission to 

transit the area. If permission is granted, 

all persons and vessels must comply 

with the instructions of the Captain of 

the Port, or his designated 

representative. 

Dated: May 11, 2012. 

R.R. Laferriere, 

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

Port Los Angeles Long Beach. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14973 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0012; CFDA 

Number 84.412A] 

RIN 1810–AB15 

Proposed Requirements—Race to the 

Top—Early Learning Challenge; 

Phase 2 

AGENCY: Department of Education and 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Proposed requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

and the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (hereafter ‘‘the Secretaries’’) 

propose requirements for Phase 2 of the 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT–ELC) program. In this 

phase (Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC 

program), we would make awards to 

certain States that applied for, but did 

not receive, funding under Phase 1 of 

the RTT–ELC competition held in fiscal 

year (FY) 2011 (FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition). Specifically, we would 

consider eligible the five highest-scoring 

applicants that did not receive funding 

in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, 

each of which received approximately 

75 percent or more of the available 

points under the competition. We take 

this action to fund down the slate of the 

FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition and to 

establish the information and 

assurances that the eligible applicants 

would need to provide in order to 

receive funding under Phase 2 of the 

RTT–ELC program. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before July 20, 2012. 

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 email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Race to the 

Top-Early Learning Challenge Phase 2 

Awards’’ at the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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 Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education 

(Attention: Race to the Top-Early 

Learning Challenge Phase 2 Comments), 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 

20202–6200. 

Privacy Note: The Department of 

Education’s policy is to make all comments 

received from members of the public 

available for public viewing in their entirety 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters 

should be careful to include in their 

comments only information that they wish to 

make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. Telephone: (202) 260–3793 or by 

email: 

RTT.Early.Learning.Challenge@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: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The Departments of Education and 

Health and Human Services 

(Departments) plan to implement Phase 

2 of the RTT–ELC program by funding 

down the slate from the FY 2011 RTT– 

ELC competition. Specifically, the 

Departments plan to make awards 

available to the next five highest-scoring 

applicants that did not receive funding 

under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition. Because the amount of 

available funds in FY 2012 is limited, 

this action proposes specific 

requirements that the five eligible 

applicants must meet in order to receive 

up to 50 percent of the funds they 

requested in their FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

applications. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: In this notice, 

we propose to establish a limited 

number of application requirements, 

assurances, and budget requirements 

that the five eligible applicants must 

meet in order to receive funds under 

Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program. 

The Application Requirements, which 

can be found in section III of the 

Proposed Requirements section of this 

notice, include a requirement that each 

eligible applicant must: (1) Describe 

how it would implement the activities 

proposed in Core Area B (selection 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36959 

1Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. 

S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early 

education interventions on cognitive and social 

development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 

579–620. 

2Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Arteaga, 

I.A., & White, B.A.B. (2011). School-based early 

childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects 

by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 

Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ 

early/2011/06/08/science.1203618.abstract doi: 

10.1126/science.1203618. 

3Princiotta, D., Flanagan, K. D., and Germino 

Hausken, E. (2006). Fifth Grade: Findings From The 

Fifth-Grade Follow-up of the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 

(ECLS–K). (NCES 2006–038) U.S. Department of 

Education. 

4Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., 

Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J.(2009). Disparities 

in Early Learning and Development: Lessons from 

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth 

Cohort (ECLS–B). Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

criteria one through five) of its FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application; (2) describe how 

it would implement the activities 

proposed in Competitive Preference 

Priority 2 of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application; and (3) from two or more of 

the three Focused Investment Areas (C, 

D, and E) in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application, select activities proposed in 

response to one or more selection 

criteria. The Application Requirements 

section further explains how applicants 

may make adjustments to the scope of 

the activities they proposed in their FY 

2011 RTT–ELC applications to ensure 

that the activities can be carried out 

successfully with the amount of funds 

available in Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC 

program. 

The Application Assurances, which 

can be found in section IV of the 

Proposed Requirements section of this 

notice, include a set of assurances for 

eligible applicants to include in their 

applications for Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

awards. These assurances relate to 

commitments made in the FY 2011 

RTT–ELC applications. For example, in 

order to receive a Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

award, an eligible applicant must 

maintain the commitments made in 

Section A(1) of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application, which describes existing 

State funding for early learning. Each 

eligible applicant must also maintain 

commitments to engage in partnerships 

described in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application. This is important because 

the strength of these commitments 

influenced how reviewers scored the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC applications. These 

commitments are also critical to 

building strong State systems of early 

learning and development. 

The proposed Budget Requirements, 

which can be found in section V of the 

Proposed Requirements section of this 

notice, require that an eligible applicant 

complete a revised budget and narrative 

that includes an explanation of why the 

eligible applicant has selected the 

activities it proposes to carry out (as 

described under ‘‘Application 

Requirements’’) and why such activities 

will have the greatest impact on 

advancing its high-quality plan for early 

learning. 

Costs and Benefits: We have 

determined that these proposed 

requirements would not impose 

significant additional costs to States, the 

eligible applicants under the RTT–ELC 

program, or the Federal Government 

and that the potential benefits would 

exceed the costs. The Departments 

believe States would incur minimal 

costs in developing plans and budgets 

for implementing selected activities 

from their FY 2011 RTT–ELC proposals, 

because such planning would entail 

revisions to existing plans and budgets 

already developed as part of the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC application process. 

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 to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

requirements. 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 3E230, 

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. 

Please contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 RTT–ELC program is to improve the 

quality of early learning and 

development and close the achievement 

gap for children with high needs. This 

program focuses on improving early 

learning and development for young 

children by supporting States’ efforts to 

increase the number and percentage of 

low-income and disadvantaged 

children, in each age group of infants, 

toddlers, and preschoolers, who are 

enrolled in high-quality early learning 

and development programs; and 

designing and implementing an 

integrated system of high-quality early 

learning and development programs and 

services. 

Program Authority: Sections 14005 

and 14006, Division A, of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

as amended by section 1832(b) of 

Division B of Public Law 112–10, the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, 

and the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of 

Division F of Pub. L. 112–74, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). 

Proposed Requirements 

Background: 

A critical focus of the Departments is 

supporting America’s youngest learners 

and helping ensure that children, 

especially young children with high 

needs, such as those who are from lowincome families, English learners, and 

children with disabilities or 

developmental delays, enter 

kindergarten ready to succeed in school 

and in life. A robust body of research 

demonstrates that high-quality early 

learning and development programs and 

services can improve young children’s 

health, social-emotional, and cognitive 

outcomes; enhance school readiness; 

and help close the school readiness 

gap1 2 that exists between children with 

high needs and their peers at the time 

they enter kindergarten.3 4

To address this school readiness gap, 

the Departments have identified, as high 

priorities, strengthening the quality of 

early learning and development 

programs and increasing access to highquality early learning and development 

programs for all children, including 

those with high needs. 

On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne 

Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius 

announced the Race to the Top-Early 

Learning Challenge, a new $500 million 

State-level grant competition authorized 

under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), as 

amended by section 1832(b) of the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. 

Through the RTT–ELC program, the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Departments seek to help close the 

achievement gap between children with 

high needs and their peers by 

supporting State efforts to build strong 

systems of early learning and 

development that provide increased 

access to high-quality programs for the 

children who need them most. 

The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition 

represented an unprecedented 

opportunity for States to focus deeply 

on their early learning and development 

systems for children from birth through 

age five. (See notice inviting 

applications for the competition, 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).) 

Through the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, States were given an 

opportunity to build a more unified 

approach to supporting young children 

and their families—an approach that 

increases access to high-quality early 

learning and development programs and 

services and helps ensure that children 

enter kindergarten with the skills, 

knowledge, and dispositions toward 

learning they need to be successful. 

In December 2011, the Departments 

made awards to the nine highest-scoring 

applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition: California, Delaware, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and 

Washington. (Due to the limited amount 

of funding available and its ranking on 

the slate, California received 

approximately half of the funding it 

requested.) 

On December 23, 2011, Public Law 

112–74, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2012, which made 

$550 million available for the Race to 

the Top Fund, was signed into law. This 

legislation authorized the Secretary of 

Education to make Race to the Top 

Fund awards on ‘‘the basis of previously 

submitted applications.’’ The 

Department of Education must obligate 

these funds by December 31, 2012. 

On April 9, 2012, the Departments 

announced that approximately $133 

million of the $550 million appropriated 

for the Race to the Top Fund would be 

made available to the next five highestscoring applicants from the FY 2011 

RTT–ELC competition. These five 

applicants, each of which received 

approximately 75 percent or more of the 

available points under the competition, 

are Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin. Throughout 

this notice, these States are referred to 

as ‘‘eligible applicants’’ for Phase 2 of 

the RTT–ELC program, under which the 

Departments will fund down the slate of 

applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition. While $133 million is not 

sufficient to support full 

implementation of the plans submitted 

by these States in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, the Secretaries believe that 

supporting high-scoring applicants that 

did not receive funding under the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition with FY 

2012 funding will help build on the 

momentum from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition and engage more States to 

transform the patchwork of 

disconnected early childhood programs 

into a coordinated and high-quality 

system. Therefore, we propose to make 

FY 2012 funds available to the eligible 

applicants at up to 50 percent of the 

funds each requested in its application 

for funds under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition. Through this notice, we 

propose the requirements for 

implementing Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC 

program, under which the Departments 

will fund down the slate from the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition. 

The Department of Education may use 

any unused funds from Phase 2 of the 

RTT–ELC program to make awards in 

the FY 2012 district-level Race to the 

Top competition, which will be 

announced in a separate notice 

published in the Federal Register. 

Conversely, the Department of 

Education may use any unused FY 2012 

funds from the district-level Race to the 

Top Fund competition to supplement 

the awards for Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC 

program. 

In this notice, we propose specific 

requirements that eligible applicants 

would have to meet in order to apply for 

up to 50 percent of the funds they 

requested in their FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition applications. 

The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition 

identified five key reform areas 

representing the foundation of an 

effective early learning and 

development reform agenda that is 

focused on school readiness and 

ongoing educational success. These 

areas, which provided a framework for 

the competition’s priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria, are 

as follows: 

(A) Successful State Systems; 

(B) High-Quality, Accountable 

Programs; 

(C) Promoting Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes for Children; 

(D) A Great Early Childhood 

Education Workforce; and 

(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress. 

The first two of these reform areas, (A) 

and (B), are core areas of focus for this 

program (hereafter ‘‘Core Areas’’), and 

applicants under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition were required to respond to 

all selection criteria under these Core 

Areas. The reform areas in (C), (D), and 

(E) are areas (hereafter ‘‘Focused 

Investment Areas’’) where applicants 

directed targeted attention to specific 

activities that were relevant to their 

State’s context. Applicants were 

required to address each Focused 

Investment Area but not all of the 

selection criteria under them. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Departments propose the 

following requirements to implement 

Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program. 

Except where otherwise indicated in 

this notice, the priorities, requirements, 

and definitions in the notice inviting 

applications for the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, published in the Federal 

Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 

53564), would also apply to the RTT– 

ELC Phase 2 application process. 

I. Proposed Eligibility Requirements 

Eligible applicants for the Phase 2 

RTT–ELC award process are those States 

that applied for funding under the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition and 

received approximately 75 percent or 

more of the available points, but that 

did not receive grant awards under that 

competition. Therefore, only the States 

of Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin are eligible to 

apply for Phase 2 RTT–ELC awards. 

II. Proposed Award Process 

To receive a Phase 2 RTT–ELC award, 

an eligible applicant must submit— 

(a) An application, consistent with its 

FY 2011 RTT–ELC application, that— 

(1) Meets the application 

requirements described in the Proposed 

Application Requirements section of 

this notice; and 

(2) Provides the assurances described 

in the Proposed Application Assurances 

section of this notice; and 

(b) For review and approval by both 

Departments, a detailed plan and budget 

describing the activities selected from 

its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application that 

would be implemented with Phase 2 

RTT–ELC funding, in accordance with 

the Budget Requirements in this notice. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

partner with each other and currently funded 

RTT–ELC grantees in carrying out specific 

activities (such as validation of a State’s 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System (TQRIS), implementation of 

longitudinal data systems, or development of 

a kindergarten entry assessment). Each 

eligible applicant may apply for Phase 2 

RTT–ELC awards individually or as a 

member of a consortium (with other eligible 

applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127–129. In any 

event, an eligible applicant must propose 

activities for Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC 

program that are consistent with its FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36961 

5The selection criteria from the FY 2011 RTT– 

ELC application can be found at http://www2.ed.

gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/

2011-412.doc (pp. 26–74). 

III. Proposed Application Requirements 

We propose the following application 

requirements for eligible applicants that 

apply for Phase 2 RTT–ELC awards: 

(a) Each eligible applicant must 

describe how it would implement an 

organizational structure for managing 

the grant that is consistent with the 

activities and commitments described in 

response to selection criterion 

A(3)(a)(1) 5 of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application, and describe how it would 

implement the activities described in 

response to Core Area B (selection 

criteria one through five) of its FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application using a Phase 2 

RTT–ELC award. The FY 2011 RTT– 

ELC Core Area B criteria promote broad 

participation in the State’s TQRIS across 

a range of programs, active and 

continuous program quality 

improvement, and the publication of 

program ratings so that families can 

make informed decisions about which 

programs can best serve the needs of 

their children. Specifically, in Core Area 

B of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application, 

each applicant had to demonstrate that 

it had developed and adopted, or had a 

high-quality Plan to develop and adopt, 

a TQRIS. In addition, each applicant 

must also implement the activities 

proposed under Competitive Preference 

Priority 2, including all early learning 

and development programs in the 

TQRIS. 

(b) In addition to addressing the 

requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section, each eligible applicant must 

select and describe how it will 

implement activities that it identified in 

its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application in 

response to Focused Investment Areas 

C, D, or E. The eligible applicant must 

select activities from two or more of the 

three Focused Investment Areas C, D, 

and E, and the activities must be 

responsive to one or more of the 

selection criteria under the Focused 

Investment Areas chosen by the 

applicant. (Eligible applicants may 

implement additional activities 

proposed under more than one selection 

criterion within each Focused 

Investment Area.) In determining which 

selection criteria to address given the 

amount of available funds under Phase 

2 of the RTT–ELC program, each eligible 

applicant should give consideration to 

those activities that will have the 

greatest impact on improving access to 

high-quality early learning programs for 

children with high needs. 

Note: In light of the reduced funding 

available, applicants may make adjustments 

in the scope of services provided to meet 

selection criteria in Focused Investment 

Areas C, D, and E. For example, an applicant 

may propose to serve fewer programs or 

regions of the State than it proposed to serve 

in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application. The 

eligible applicant must provide a detailed 

explanation of its rationale for such 

adjustments and also must amend its targets 

in Tables B(2)(c) and B(4)(c)(1–2) of the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC application, as needed. 

Applicants should ensure that the 

adjustments do not diminish the program’s 

impact on improving access to high quality 

early learning programs for children with 

high needs. In addition, when the scope of 

work is adjusted by targeting specific regions 

in the State, the activities should be 

consistent across regions. 

(c) In addition, each eligible applicant 

may implement the activities it 

proposed in response to the Invitational 

Priorities from its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application. Eligible applicants that 

wrote to Invitational Priority 2 are 

encouraged to pursue public-private 

partnerships to the extent that this will 

augment total funds available for 

carrying out the activities described in 

the FY 2011 RTT–ELC application. 

Note: We encourage grantees to enter 

into consortia, where relevant, in order 

to maximize the use of available funds. 

Please refer to section (V)(B) later in this 

notice. 

(d) We will use Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

funding to support only those activities 

included in an eligible applicant’s FY 

2011 RTT–ELC application. Therefore, 

an eligible applicant must not include 

new activities in its Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

application. 

(e) Each Phase 2 RTT–ELC application 

must include current signatures by the 

eligible applicant’s Governor or an 

authorized representative signing on 

behalf of the Governor; an authorized 

representative from the eligible 

applicant’s Lead Agency; and an 

authorized representative from each 

Participating State Agency. 

(f) Each Phase 2 RTT–ELC application 

must include a newly signed 

Memorandum of Understanding and a 

preliminary scope of work for each 

Participating State Agency. 

IV. Proposed Application Assurances 

Each eligible applicant must include 

in its Phase 2 RTT–ELC application the 

following assurances from its Governor 

or authorized representative of the 

Governor of its State: 

(a) While the State may make 

appropriate adjustments to the scope, 

budget, timeline, and performance 

targets, consistent with the reduced 

amount of funding that is available 

under the Phase 2 RTT–ELC award 

process, the State will maintain 

consistency with the absolute priority 

and all program and eligibility 

requirements of the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition. 

(b) The State will maintain its 

commitment to and investment in highquality, accessible early learning and 

development programs and services for 

children with high needs, as described 

in Section A(1) of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application. 

(c) Subject to adjustments due to the 

reduced amount of funding available 

under the Phase 2 RTT–ELC award 

process, the State will maintain its plan 

to establish strong participation and 

commitment by Participating State 

Agencies and other early learning and 

development stakeholders as described 

in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application. 

(d) The State will maintain its 

commitment to integrating and aligning 

resources and policies across 

Participating State Agencies as 

described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 

RTT–ELC application. 

(e) The State will comply with all of 

the accountability, transparency, and 

reporting requirements that applied to 

the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition. (See 

the notice inviting applications for the 

FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).) 

(f) The State will comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation of the 

RTT–ELC program, or of specific 

activities it proposes to pursue as part 

of the program, conducted and 

supported by the Departments. 

V. Proposed Budget Requirements 

An eligible applicant may apply for 

up to 50 percent of the funds requested 

in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application. 

The following budget requirements 

would apply to the Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

award process: 

(a) Budget Narrative. Each eligible 

applicant must submit a detailed 

narrative and budget, using the format 

and instructions provided in the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC application package, 

which describes the activities it has 

selected from its FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application that it proposes to 

implement with a Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

award. This detailed narrative must 

include an explanation of why the 

eligible applicant has selected these 

activities and why the eligible applicant 

believes they will have the greatest 

impact on advancing its high-quality 

plan for early learning. The narrative 

must also explain where the applicant 

has made adjustments (such as a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reduction in the number of participating 

programs or areas of the State served) to 

ensure that the activities can be carried 

out successfully with the amount of 

funds available. In reviewing the 

narrative, we may request the applicant 

submit revisions to address concerns 

related to feasibility or the strategic use 

of funds. (See the notice inviting 

applications for the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, published in the Federal 

Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 

53564).) 

(b) Applying as a Consortium. As 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, we 

encourage eligible applicants to form 

consortia with each other and partner 

with currently funded RTT–ELC 

grantees in carrying out specific 

activities (such as validation of a State’s 

TQRIS, implementation of longitudinal 

data systems, or development of a 

kindergarten entry assessment). Eligible 

applicants may apply individually or as 

members of a consortium (with other 

eligible applicants) under 34 CFR 

75.127–129. Each applicant must 

propose activities consistent with its FY 

2011 RTT–ELC application. Therefore, 

each eligible applicant that chooses to 

apply as a member of a consortium or 

to partner with a current RTT–ELC 

grantee in carrying out project activities 

must include in its revised budget 

narrative an explanation of how the 

activities to be undertaken by the 

consortium or partnership are consistent 

with the applicant’s FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

application and how the consortium or 

partnership will help the applicant 

implement its selected activities. It is 

important to note that an applicant may 

propose some activities that it would 

execute alone and others that it would 

execute as part of a consortium. 

(c) Available Funds. The maximum 

amounts of funding for which each 

eligible applicant may apply are shown 

in the following table. The amounts in 

this table are based on the requirement 

that each eligible applicant may apply 

for up to half of the amount it requested 

in its FY 2011 RTT–ELC application. 

State Maximum amount 

Colorado ....................... $29,925,888 

Illinois ............................ 34,798,696 

New Mexico .................. 25,000,000 

Oregon .......................... 20,508,902 

Wisconsin ..................... 22,701,389 

Final Requirements: 

We will announce the final 

requirements for the Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

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 Departments. This notice does not 

preclude the Departments 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 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretaries 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 

stated in the Executive order. 

This regulatory action would have an 

annual effect on the economy of more 

than $100 million because the amount 

of government transfers through the 

Phase 2 RTT–ELC award process 

exceeds that amount. Therefore, this 

proposed action is ‘‘economically 

significant’’ and subject to review by 

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 would justify the costs. 

The Departments have also reviewed 

these proposed requirements under 

Executive Order 13563, which 

supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account—among other things, and 

to the extent practicable—the costs of 

cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance a regulated entity must 

adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including providing economic 

incentives—such as user fees or 

marketable permits—to encourage the 

desired behavior, or provide 

information that enables the public to 

make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

requirements only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Departments 

believe these proposed regulations are 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

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. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, net 

budget impacts, assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources, as well as 

regulatory alternatives we considered. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36963 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These proposed requirements are 

needed to implement the Phase 2 RTT– 

ELC award process in the manner that 

the Departments believe will best enable 

the program to achieve its objectives of 

creating the conditions for effective 

reform in State early learning systems in 

States that had high-scoring 

applications in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition but that did not receive 

funding in that competition, to 

implement key elements of their 

comprehensive reform proposals 

submitted as part of their FY 2011 RTT– 

ELC competition 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 

contained in this notice involve reaffirming State commitments and plans 

already completed as part of the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition or other 

Federal education programs. Similarly, 

other proposed requirements, in 

particular those related to maintaining 

conditions for reform required under the 

FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, would 

require continuation of existing 

commitments and investments rather 

than the imposition of additional 

burdens and costs. The Departments 

believe those States that are eligible for 

Phase 2 awards would incur minimal 

costs in developing plans and budgets 

for implementing selected activities 

from their FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition proposals, because in most 

cases such planning would entail 

revisions to existing plans and budgets 

already developed as part of the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC application process and 

not the development and 

implementation of entirely new plans 

and budgets. In all such cases, the 

Departments believe that the benefits 

resulting from the proposed 

requirements for the Phase 2 RTT–ELC 

award process, would exceed their 

costs. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

An alternative to promulgation of the 

types of requirements proposed in this 

notice would be to use FY 2012 Race to 

the Top funds to make awards to the 

one or two highest-scoring unfunded 

applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition and to use the remaining 

funds for the Race to the Top districtlevel competition to be held in FY 2012. 

We have concluded that approximately 

$400 million in available FY 2012 funds 

is necessary to support a meaningful 

district-level competition. 

Moreover, the Departments believe 

that simply funding the one or two 

highest-scoring applicants that were not 

selected in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition would result in a missed 

opportunity to reward the efforts of 

other high-scoring applicants from that 

competition and to enable them to make 

meaningful progress on key elements of 

their State early learning plans. 

To assist the Departments in 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries 

invite 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 RTT–ELC program. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at 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.

$132,934,875. 

From Whom To 

Whom? 

Federal Government 

to States. 

The Phase 2 RTT–ELC award process 

would provide approximately $133 

million in competitive grants to eligible 

applicants (those five applicants that 

did not receive funding in the FY 2011 

RTT–ELC competition, but which 

received approximately 75 percent or 

more of the available points under the 

competition). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretaries certify that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed regulatory action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities (such as subaward 

recipients) because they will be able to 

meet the costs of compliance with this 

regulatory action using the funds 

provided under this program. 

The Secretaries invite comments from 

small entities as to whether they believe 

this proposed regulatory action would 

have a significant economic impact on 

them and, if so, request evidence to 

support that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These proposed requirements contain 

information collection requirements. 

However, because the eligible 

applicants for Phase 2 RTT–ELC 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)). 

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. 

Assessment of Educational Impact: In 

accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Departments invite 

comment on whether these proposed 

requirements would require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of these Departments 

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 

these Departments published in the 

Federal Register by using the article 

search feature at 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by these 

Departments. 

Dated: June 14, 2012. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14954 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0332; FRL–9687–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to the New Source Review 

(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); 

Antibacksliding of Major NSR SIP 

Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS); Major 

Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) SIP 

Requirements for the 1997 Eight-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS; and Major NSR Reform 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the SIP for the State of 

Texas that relate to antibacksliding of 

Major NSR SIP Requirements for the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS; Major NNSR 

SIP requirements for the 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS; Major NSR Reform 

Program with Plantwide Applicability 

Limit (PAL) provisions; and non-PAL 

aspects of the Major NSR SIP 

requirements. EPA proposes to find that 

these changes to the Texas SIP comply 

with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act 

or CAA) and EPA regulations and are 

consistent with EPA policies. Texas 

submitted revisions to these programs 

on June 10, 2005, and February 1, 2006. 

EPA disapproved these SIP revisions on 

September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56424). In 

response to the 2010 disapproval, Texas 

submitted revisions to these programs in 

two separate SIP submittals on March 

11, 2011. These SIP submittals include 

resubmittal of the rules that were 

previously submitted June 10, 2005, and 

February 1, 2006, and subsequently 

disapproved by EPA on September 15, 

2010. On February 22, 2012, Texas 

proposed further revisions to the NSR 

Reform Program to further clarify and 

ensure compliance with Federal 

requirements relating to NSR Reform. 

On May 3, 2012, Texas provided a letter 

to EPA which requested that EPA 

parallel process the revisions proposed 

February 22, 2012, and included a 

demonstration showing how its 

submitted rules are at least as stringent 

as the Federal NSR Reform Program. 

Texas has requested that EPA parallel 

process the revisions proposed February 

22, 2012, and consider the May 3, 2012, 

letter in the review of the March 11, 

2011, SIP submittals. Today, EPA is 

proposing to find that the March 11, 

2011, SIP submittals; the February 22, 

2012, proposed revisions; and the May 

3, 2012, letter, address each of the 

grounds for EPA’s September 15, 2010, 

disapproval and other issues related to 

the Texas NSR Reform revisions as 

identified later. Accordingly, EPA 

proposes to approve these two March 

11, 2011, revisions; the February 22, 

2012, proposed revisions for which 

Texas has requested parallel processing; 

and the May 3, 2012, letter as part of the 

Texas NSR SIP. EPA is proposing this 

action under section 110 and parts C 

and D of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2011–0332 by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http: 

//www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(2) Email: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at 

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov. 

(3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

(4) Fax: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), at fax number 

214–665–6762. 

(5) Mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

(6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. 

Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011– 

0332. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1