22306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 

4. Review and Selection Process: We 

remind potential applicants that in 

reviewing applications in any 

discretionary grant competition, the 

Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 

75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the 

applicant in carrying out a previous 

award, such as the applicant’s use of 

funds, achievement of project 

objectives, and compliance with grant 

conditions. The Secretary may also 

consider whether the applicant failed to 

submit a timely performance report or 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary also requires 

various assurances, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department of 

Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 

108.8, and 110.23). 

5. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 

74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary may 

impose special conditions on a grant if 

the applicant or grantee is not 

financially stable; has a history of 

unsatisfactory performance; has a 

financial or other management system 

that does not meet the standards in 34 

CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has 

not fulfilled the conditions of a prior 

grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may notify you informally, 

also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multi-year award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/appforms/ 

appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: The goal of 

the CSP is to support the creation and 

development of a large number of highquality charter schools that are free from 

State or local rules that inhibit flexible 

operation, are held accountable for 

enabling students to reach challenging 

State performance standards, and are 

open to all students. The Secretary has 

two performance indicators to measure 

progress toward this goal: (1) The 

number of high-quality charter schools 

in operation around the Nation, and (2) 

the percentage of fourth- and eighthgrade charter school students who are 

achieving at or above the proficient 

level on State examinations in 

mathematics and reading/language arts. 

Additionally, the Secretary has 

established the following measure to 

examine the efficiency of the CSP: 

Federal cost per student in 

implementing a successful school 

(defined as a school in operation for 

three or more consecutive years). 

All grantees must submit an annual 

performance report with information 

that is responsive to these performance 

measures. 

5. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award, the Secretary may 

consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the 

extent to which a grantee has made 

‘‘substantial progress toward meeting 

the objectives in its approved 

application.’’ This consideration 

includes the review of a grantee’s 

progress in meeting the targets and 

projected outcomes in its approved 

application, and whether the grantee 

has expended funds in a manner that is 

consistent with its approved application 

and budget. In making a continuation 

award, the Secretary also considers 

whether the grantee is operating in 

compliance with the assurances in its 

approved application, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LaShawndra Thornton, U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW., room 4W257, Washington, DC 

20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 453–5617 

or by email: 

lashawndra.thornton@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VII of this notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

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

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 10, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8980 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

State Personnel Development Grants; 

Proposed Priorities and Definitions; 

CFDA Number 84.323A 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes priorities and 

definitions under the State Personnel 

Development Grants (SPDG) program. 

The Assistant Secretary may use one or 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 22307 

more of these priorities and definitions 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 

and later years. We take this action to 

assist State educational agencies (SEAs) 

to make their systems of professional 

development more effective and 

efficient through the provision of 

evidence-based, ongoing professional 

development that uses technology to 

support the implementation of 

evidence-based practices. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Jennifer Coffey, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 4097, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2600. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

jennifer.coffey@ed.gov. You must 

include the term ‘‘SPDG Priorities and 

Definitions’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Coffey. Telephone: (202) 245– 

6673. 

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 priorities 

and definitions, we urge you to identify 

clearly the specific topic 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 

priorities and definitions. 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 in room 4097, 550 12th 

Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, 

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

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 purpose of 

this program is to assist SEAs in 

reforming and improving their systems 

for personnel preparation and 

professional development in early 

intervention, educational, and transition 

services in order to improve results for 

children with disabilities. 

Statutory Requirements: Applicants 

under the SPDG program must meet the 

statutory requirements in sections 651 

through 654 of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 

including the application requirements 

in section 653 and the use of funds 

requirements in section 654. Because 

the priorities and definitions proposed 

in this notice would supplement these 

statutory requirements, applicants 

should familiarize themselves with the 

statutory requirements they must also 

meet to receive funding under this 

program. 

In addition, section 651(b) of the 

IDEA defines the term ‘‘personnel,’’ as 

it is used in connection with the SPDG 

program. This definition would apply to 

the priorities in this notice as well. 

Under section 651(b) of the IDEA, the 

term ‘‘personnel’’ means special 

education teachers, regular education 

teachers, principals, administrators, 

related services personnel, 

paraprofessionals, and early 

intervention personnel serving infants, 

toddlers, preschoolers, or children with 

disabilities, except where a particular 

category of personnel, such as related 

services personnel, is identified. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451–1455. 

Proposed Priorities 

This notice contains two proposed 

priorities. 

Proposed Priority 1—Effective and 

Efficient Delivery of Professional 

Development 

Background 

The purpose of the SPDG program is 

to assist SEAs in reforming and 

improving their systems for personnel 

preparation and professional 

development of individuals providing 

early intervention, educational, and 

transition services in order to improve 

results for children with disabilities. 

High-quality, comprehensive 

professional development programs are 

essential to ensure that the persons 

responsible for the early intervention of 

infants and toddlers, and the education, 

or transition of children with 

disabilities possess the skills and 

knowledge necessary to address the 

early intervention, educational, and 

related services needs of those infants 

and toddlers or children. Through this 

priority, we seek to support (a) 

Evidence-based (as defined in this 

notice) professional development for 

personnel serving infants, toddlers, 

preschoolers, or children with 

disabilities, (b) ongoing assistance to 

personnel in early intervention 

programs and local educational agencies 

(LEAs) receiving SPDG-supported 

professional development to implement 

evidence-based practices, and (c) using 

technology to more efficiently and 

effectively provide ongoing professional 

development to personnel. 

Evidence-Based Professional 

Development 

Professional development enables 

teachers to learn new and evidencebased practices and to master new skills 

(Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 

2010). Professional development that 

emphasizes skill building and classroom 

practices can help teachers build 

competence that leads to the continued 

use of new and evidence-based practices 

(American Educational Research 

Association, 2005). There is evidence 

indicating that the following 

components of effective professional 

development can lead to more 

successful implementation of new 

practices: (1) Professional development 

participants, trainers, and coaches who 

have the prerequisite knowledge and 

skills; (2) effective training practices 

that are based on adult learning 

principles and that focus on building 

the skills of the participants; (3) ongoing 

coaching; (4) performance assessments; 

and (5) administrative support for 

implementation of the new practices 

(Boudah, Logan, & Greenwood, 2001; 

Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & 

Wallace, 2005; Fullan, 2005). For more 

information on these critical 

components of professional 

development, please visit 

www.signetwork.org/content_pages/205. 

In this priority, therefore, we propose to 

require SPDG projects to use evidencebased professional development 

practices, consistent with these 

components. 

Ongoing Assistance That Supports 

Implementation 

A great deal of professional 

development may be necessary for 

personnel to feel competent in 

implementing a new practice— 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22308 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 

especially a practice that is complex 

(Cook et al., 2003; Gersten & Dimino, 

2001; Slavin, 2004). Studies suggest that 

the more time teachers spend 

developing their knowledge and skills 

through evidence-based professional 

development, the more significantly 

they change their practices (Louis & 

Marks, 1998; U.S. Department of 

Education, 2001). Ongoing training, 

coaching, and other types of support are 

necessary for teachers to implement 

new evidence-based practices because 

although teachers receiving training 

may initially implement at least some of 

these practices, implementation rates 

can drop by 20 percent to 60 percent 

one year after training (Wei, DarlingHammond, & Adamson, 2010). In 

addition, when schools have high rates 

of staff turnover (as high as 50 percent 

for new teachers), ongoing professional 

development is a critical means of 

ensuring new staff have the necessary 

knowledge and skills to effectively 

implement educational programs (Elias, 

Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003). 

Accordingly, through this proposed 

priority, we require SPDG projects to 

provide personnel receiving SPDGsupported professional development 

with ongoing assistance to support these 

personnel in implementing evidencebased practices in the manner in which 

the practices are designed to be 

delivered. 

Use of Technology 

Training and coaching for 

professional development participants 

is expensive; however, use of 

technology (e.g., bug-in-ear technology 

for coaching) has the potential to 

significantly reduce these costs 

(National Center for Academic 

Transformation, n.d.; Schlager, Farooq, 

Fusco, Schank, & Dwyer, 2009) and to 

reach more people more efficiently 

(Ludlow & Brannan, 2010). The use of 

technology to provide professional 

development is especially critical in 

rural areas, where attrition among 

personnel is high and there are limited 

training opportunities and resources 

(Johnson, Humphrey, & Allred, 2009; 

Menlove & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2004). As 

professional development providers 

attempt to provide ongoing technical 

assistance instead of one-time training 

sessions and to reach personnel in rural 

areas, it will be critical for these 

professional development providers to 

capitalize on the capabilities offered by 

these newer technologies (Williams, 

Martin, & Hess, 2010). For this reason, 

this proposed priority requires SPDG 

projects to use technology to more 

efficiently and effectively provide 

ongoing professional development to 

personnel, including those in rural 

areas. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority to assist SEAs in 

reforming and improving their systems 

for personnel (as that term is defined in 

section 651(b) of the IDEA) preparation 

and professional development of 

individuals providing early 

intervention, educational, and transition 

services in order to improve results for 

children with disabilities. 

In order to meet this priority an 

applicant must demonstrate in the 

SPDG State Plan it submits as part of its 

application under section 653(a)(2) of 

the IDEA that its proposed project 

will— 

(1) Use evidence-based (as defined in 

this notice) professional development 

practices that will increase 

implementation of evidence-based 

practices and result in improved 

outcomes for children with disabilities; 

(2) Provide ongoing assistance to 

personnel receiving SPDG-supported 

professional development that supports 

the implementation of evidence-based 

practices with fidelity (as defined in this 

notice); and 

(3) Use technology to more efficiently 

and effectively provide ongoing 

professional development to personnel, 

including to personnel in rural areas 

and to other populations, such as 

personnel in urban or high-need LEAs 

(as defined in this notice). 

Proposed Priority 2—Targeting 

Teachers’ Professional Development 

Needs Based on Student Growth 

Background 

Effective teaching is a cornerstone of 

education reform (Whitehurst, 2002). To 

evaluate teacher effectiveness, an 

increasing number of SEAs and LEAs 

have begun examining data on growth 

in student achievement (Hanushek & 

Rivkin, 2010; Taylor & Tyler, 2011). In 

addition, these data are increasingly 

being used to identify professional 

development needs (Torgeson, 

Meadows, & Howard, 2011). Using 

student outcome data to identify the 

professional development needs of 

teachers can be a useful first step in 

helping teachers meet the needs of their 

students. This is important because 

many schools continue to struggle to 

meet their academic goals for children 

with disabilities, with little 

improvement nationally in the 

performance of students with 

disabilities on statewide assessments 

(Altman, Thurlow, & Vang, 2010). For 

this reason, we propose a priority for 

projects that are designed to provide 

teachers professional development that 

is targeted to meet their specific needs, 

as those needs are identified by teacher 

evaluation systems that take into 

account student growth (as defined in 

this notice) in determining performance 

levels. In FY 2012, we intend to use this 

proposed priority as a competitive 

preference priority. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for projects that are 

designed to provide teachers 

professional development that is 

targeted to meet their specific needs, as 

those needs are identified by teacher 

evaluation systems that take into 

account student growth (as defined in 

this notice) in determining performance 

levels. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the 

competitive preference priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the priority over 

an application of comparable merit that 

does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Definitions 

Background 

We propose the following definitions 

of the terms evidence-based, fidelity, 

high-need local educational agency 

(LEA), student achievement, and 

student growth for use in the SPDG 

program. We propose these definitions 

to ensure that applicants have a clear 

understanding of how we are using 

these terms in the proposed priorities. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 22309 

To the extent appropriate, we propose to 

use definitions that we have used in 

other similar priorities. For example, the 

definitions of evidence-based, student 

achievement, and student growth are 

based on the definitions of terms 

defined in the Department’s notice of 

final supplemental priorities and 

definitions for discretionary grant 

programs, published in the Federal 

Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 

78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 

(76 FR 27637). In addition, we propose 

to adopt the definition of high-need LEA 

that is used in the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA). Finally, we have 

based the proposed definition of the 

term fidelity on a definition that is 

widely accepted in the field (Gresham, 

MacMillan, Boebe-Frankenberger, & 

Bocian, 2000). 

Proposed Definitions: The Assistant 

Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for this program. We may 

apply one or more of these definitions 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

Evidence-based refers to practices for 

which there is strong evidence or 

moderate evidence of effectiveness. 

Fidelity means the delivery of 

instruction in the way in which it was 

designed to be delivered. 

High-need LEA means, in accordance 

with section 2102(3) of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA), an LEA— 

(a) That serves not fewer than 10,000 

children from families with incomes 

below the poverty line (as that term is 

defined in section 9101(33) of the 

ESEA), or for which not less than 20 

percent of the children served by the 

LEA are from families with incomes 

below the poverty line; and 

(b) For which there is (1) a high 

percentage of teachers not teaching in 

the academic subjects or grade levels 

that the teachers were trained to teach, 

or (2) a high percentage of teachers with 

emergency, provisional, or temporary 

certification or licensing. 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) 

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under the ESEA; and, as 

appropriate, (2) other measures of 

student learning, such as those 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across schools. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student scores 

on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; 

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

schools. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. 

Final Priorities and Definitions 

We will announce the final priorities 

and definitions in a notice in the 

Federal Register. We will determine the 

final priorities and definitions after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, we 

invite applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action 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 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account— among other 

things and to the extent practicable—the 

costs of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are taking this regulatory action 

only on a reasoned determination that 

its benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22310 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 

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 compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal 

Registerand the Code of Federal 

Regulations is available via the Federal 

Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

At this site you can view this document, 

as well as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 10, 2012. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8974 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC12–92–000. 

Applicants: Noble Americas Gas & 

Power Corp., Eagle Point Power 

Generation LLC. 

Description: Application for Approval 

Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal 

Power Act, Request for Expedited 

Consideration and Request for 

Privileged Treatment of Eagle Point 

Power Generation LLC, et al. 

Filed Date: 4/4/12. 

Accession Number: 20120404–5227. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/12. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER12–1120–001. 

Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. 

Description: Amendment Filing to be 

effective 4/19/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/4/12. 

Accession Number: 20120404–5177. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–1445–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: Ministerial Clean-Up 

Filing due to Overlapping Filings to be 

effective 2/18/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/4/12. 

Accession Number: 20120404–5195. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–1446–000. 

Applicants: PacifiCorp. 

Description: Tariff Volume 4— 

Compliance Filing to be effective 4/4/ 

2012. 

Filed Date: 4/4/12. 

Accession Number: 20120404–5204. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/12. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ 

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: April 5, 2012. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8955 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #2 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER12–845–001. 

Applicants: Bishop Hill 

Interconnection LLC. 

Description: Compliance Filing of 

Common Facilities Agreement to be 

effective 3/29/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 

Accession Number: 20120405–5046. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–846–001. 

Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II 

LLC. 

Description: Compliance Filing of 

Common Facilities Agreement to be 

effective 3/29/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 

Accession Number: 20120405–5051. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–847–001. 

Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy LLC. 

Description: Compliance Filing of 

Amended Shared Facilities Agreement 

to be effective 3/29/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 

Accession Number: 20120405–5043. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–848–001. 

Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II 

LLC. 

Description: Cancellation of Shared 

Facilities Agreement Compliance Filing 

to be effective 3/29/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 

Accession Number: 20120405–5052. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–849–001. 

Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy III 

LLC. 

Description: Cancellation of Shared 

Facilities Agreement Compliance Filing 

to be effective 3/29/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 

Accession Number: 20120405–5044. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–850–001. 

Applicants: Bishop Hill 

Interconnection LLC. 

Description: Compliance Filing of 

Amended Shared Facilities Agreement 

to be effective 3/29/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 

Accession Number: 20120405–5045. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12. 

Docket Numbers: ER12–1418–001. 

Applicants: TC Ravenswood, LLC. 

Description: Rate Schedule to be 

effective 3/30/2012. 

Filed Date: 4/5/12. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES