Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 44475 

(c) Regulations. For the purpose of 

this section, the general regulations 

contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply to all 

but the following vessels in the areas 

described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c): 

(1) Alaska Marine Highway System 

Ferries. 

(2) Vessels that obtain permission 

through the Duty Officer at Marine 

Safety Unit Valdez, who can be 

contacted at (907) 831–0236. 

(3) Vessels that obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port, who may 

authorize and designate any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer to act on his behalf in enforcing 

the safety zone. 

Dated: July 8, 2012. 

B.J. Hawkins, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port, Prince William Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18453 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1126] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Seattle’s Seafair Fleet 

Week Moving Vessels, Puget Sound, 

WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

Seattle’s Seafair Fleet Week Moving 

Vessels Security Zones from 12:00 p.m. 

on July 31, 2012 through 5:00 p.m. on 

August 6, 2012. These security zones are 

necessary to help ensure the security of 

the vessels from sabotage or other 

subversive acts during Seafair Fleet 

Week Parade of Ships. The Designated 

participating vessels are: the HMCS 

NANAIMO (NCSM 702), the HMCS 

EDMONTON (NCSM 703), the HMCS 

ORIOLE, and the USCGC STRATTON 

(WMSL 752). During the enforcement 

period, no person or vessel may enter or 

remain in the security zones without the 

permission of the COTP or a Designated 

Representative. The COTP has granted 

general permission for vessels to enter 

the outer 400 yards of the security zones 

as long as those vessels within the outer 

400 yards of the security zones operate 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain course unless required to 

maintain speed by the navigation rules. 

DATES: This rule will be enforced from 

12:00 p.m. on July 31, 2012 thru 

5:00 p.m. on August 6, 2012 unless 

canceled sooner by the Captain of the 

Port. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

1126 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–1126 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior 

Grade Anthony P. LaBoy, Sector Puget 

Sound, Waterways Management 

Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

206–217–6323, email 

SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the security zones 

for Seattle’s Seafair Fleet Week Moving 

Vessels within the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in 

33 CFR 165.1333 from 12:00 p.m. on 

July 31, 2012 through 5:00 p.m. on 

August 6, 2012. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.1333, the following areas are 

security zones: All navigable waters 

within 500 yards of the HMCS 

NANAIMO (NCSM 702), HMCS 

EDMONTON (NCSM 703), HMCS 

ORIOLE, and the USCGC STRATTON 

(WMSL 752) while each vessel is in the 

Sector Puget Sound COTP Zone. No 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the security zones described in 

paragraph (a) of this section without the 

permission of the COTP or his 

Designated Representative. 

The COTP has granted general 

permission for vessels to enter the outer 

400 yards of the security zones as long 

as those vessels within the outer 400 

yards of the security zones operate at 

the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain course unless required to 

maintain speed by the navigation rules. 

The COTP may be assisted by other 

federal, state or local agencies with the 

enforcement of the security zones. 

All vessel operators who desire to 

enter the inner 100 yards of the security 

zones or transit the outer 400 yards at 

greater than minimum speed necessary 

to maintain course must obtain 

permission from the COTP or his 

Designated Representative by contacting 

the on-scene Coast Guard patrol craft on 

VHF 13 or Channel 16. Requests must 

include the reason why movement 

within this area is necessary. Vessel 

operators granted permission to enter 

the security zones will be escorted by 

the on-scene Coast Guard patrol craft 

until they are outside of the security 

zones. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.1333 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

In addition to this notice, the Coast 

Guard will provide the maritime 

community with extensive advanced 

notification of the security zones via the 

Local Notice to Mariners and marine 

information broadcasts on the day of the 

event. 

Dated: July 17, 2012. 

S.J. Ferguson, 

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

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18570 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[CFDA Number: 84.282P] 

Final Definitions, Requirements, and 

Selection Criteria; Charter Schools 

Program (CSP)—Charter School 

Exemplary Collaboration Awards 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final definitions, requirements, 

and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement announces final 

definitions, requirements, and selection 

criteria under the Charter Schools 

Program—Charter School Exemplary 

Collaboration Awards (Collaboration 

Awards). The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary may use one or more of these 

definitions, requirements, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2012 and later years. We take this 

action to create incentives for highquality charter schools to collaborate 

with non-chartered public schools and 

non-chartered local educational 

agencies (LEAs) to share and transfer 

best educational and operational 

practices at the elementary and 

secondary school levels; and 

disseminate information about these 

collaborations nationwide. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
44476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: Effective Date: These final 

definitions, requirements, and selection 

criteria are effective August 29, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Paulu, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W246, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970; or Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Emails and telephone numbers: 

nancy.paulu@ed.gov or (202) 205–5392; 

erin.pfeltz@ed.gov or (202) 205–3525. 

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: 

Purpose of Program 

The purpose of the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP) is to increase national 

understanding of the charter schools 

model by— 

(1) Providing financial assistance for 

the planning, program design, and 

initial implementation of charter 

schools; 

(2) Evaluating the effects of charter 

schools, including the effects on 

students, student academic 

achievement, staff, and parents; 

(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools available to 

students across the Nation; and 

(4) Encouraging the States to provide 

support to charter schools for facilities 

financing in an amount that is more 

commensurate with the amount the 

States have typically provided for 

traditional public schools. 

The purpose of the Collaboration 

Awards competition (CFDA 84.282P) is 

to encourage high-quality charter 

schools (as defined in this notice) to 

partner with non-chartered public 

schools (as defined in this notice) and 

non-chartered LEAs (as defined in this 

notice) to share and transfer best 

educational and operational practices, 

and to disseminate information about 

such practices. By promoting strong 

partnerships and supporting the 

dissemination of information about the 

activities carried out through the 

partnerships, these Collaboration 

Awards should facilitate the exchange 

of best practices between public charter 

schools, non-chartered public schools, 

and non-chartered LEAs; and help the 

United States Department of Education 

(Department) identify and publicize 

successful collaborations. The 

Collaboration Awards competition is 

designed to encourage public charter 

schools, non-chartered public schools, 

and non-chartered LEAs to share 

resources and responsibilities; build 

trust and teamwork; boost academic 

excellence; and provide students and 

their parents with a range of effective 

educational options. The Department, 

through the Collaboration Awards 

competition, aims to increase national 

understanding of the charter schools 

model. 

Program Authority 

The CSP is authorized under 20 

U.S.C. 7221–7221i; CSP national 

activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 

7221d. 

The Department published a notice of 

proposed definitions, requirements, and 

selection criteria (NPP) for the 

Collaboration Awards in the Federal 

Register on April 25, 2012 (77 FR 

24690). The NPP contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

There are differences between the 

definitions, requirements, and selection 

criteria proposed in the NPP and these 

final definitions, requirements, and 

selection criteria, as discussed in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section elsewhere in this notice. The 

most significant changes are as follows: 

(1) Clarifying that only high-quality 

charter schools are eligible to apply for 

Collaboration Awards; (2) adding a 

definition for ‘‘high-quality charter 

school’’; (3) creating an additional 

selection criterion, ‘‘Quality of the lead 

applicant,’’ which allows consideration 

of the extent to which an applicant is a 

high-quality charter school; (4) changing 

the title of the first selection criterion 

from ‘‘Record of and potential for 

success’’ to ‘‘Record of and potential for 

success of collaboration’’; (5) altering 

the title of the Collaboration Awards 

competition from ‘‘Exemplary Charter 

School Collaboration Awards’’ to 

‘‘Charter School Exemplary 

Collaboration Awards’’ in order to 

emphasize that the collaboration itself 

must be exemplary; and (6) adding 

‘‘school climate’’ and access to charter 

schools for students with disabilities to 

the list of potential areas suitable for a 

collaboration. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, eight parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

definitions, requirements, and selection 

criteria. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raise concerns not 

directly related to the definitions, 

requirements, or selection criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

since publication of the NPP follows. 

Priorities 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we create a new priority, not 

included in the NPP, to encourage 

collaboration between public charter 

schools and non-chartered public 

schools that aims to improve access to 

charter schools for students with 

disabilities. The commenter stated that 

disseminating information about 

successful collaborations related to 

improving access to charter schools for 

students with disabilities would also 

make a positive contribution to the field 

of special education. 

Discussion: We agree that improving 

access to charter schools for students 

with disabilities is important, and an 

area in which charter schools frequently 

look for best practices and models. 

Because this is the first year of the 

competition, however, we believe that it 

is best to encourage applications from a 

broad range of charter schools and to 

avoid requirements or priorities that 

might discourage potential applicants 

from applying. This does not preclude 

the possibility of a priority related to 

improving access to charter schools for 

students with disabilities being 

included in future years. 

Change: We decline to create a 

priority to encourage collaboration 

between public charter schools and nonchartered public schools that aims to 

improve access to charter schools for 

students with disabilities. The Final 

Application Requirements section of 

this notice, however, lists examples of 

areas that might be appropriate for 

collaboration. This list includes access 

to charter schools by students with 

disabilities as an area suitable for 

collaboration. We have removed 

‘‘students with other special needs’’ 

from the list in the Final Application 

Requirements section of areas that might 

be appropriate for collaboration because 

it duplicates other areas listed: ‘‘Special 

education services and access to charter 

schools by students with disabilities’’ 

and ‘‘English learners.’’ 

Definitions 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the proposed definition of 

‘‘collaboration’’ align more closely with 

the intent of the Collaboration Awards 

as described in the NPP’s Summary and 

Purpose of Program sections. The 

commenter recommended an expanded 

and more detailed definition of 

‘‘collaboration’’ that incorporates much 

of the language used in the Summary 

and Purpose of Program sections. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 44477 

Discussion: We decline to revise the 

definition of ‘‘collaboration’’ because a 

more detailed definition could be 

unnecessarily restrictive and could limit 

how applicants think about 

collaboration. The final definition reads, 

‘‘Collaboration refers to the activities of 

a partnership in which two or more 

organizations or entities work together 

to accomplish a common goal, which 

may involve sharing or transferring of 

best practices or strategies.’’ We 

consider this definition appropriate 

because it provides applicants the 

flexibility to be creative in continuing, 

modifying, or expanding their 

collaborations. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that we define 

‘‘exemplary’’ in order to clarify the 

expectations and standards for 

applicants and to help them determine 

whether their schools are qualified to 

apply for an award. 

Discussion: The Collaboration Awards 

competition is designed to identify 

exemplary partnerships between highquality public charter schools and nonchartered public schools and nonchartered LEAs, as well as to support 

the dissemination of information about 

the activities carried out through the 

partnerships. To clarify the 

requirements for both the applicant and 

the collaboration, we are making several 

revisions to the final requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Changes: (1) We have changed the 

competition’s title from ‘‘Exemplary 

Charter School Collaboration Awards’’ 

to ‘‘Charter School Exemplary 

Collaboration Awards’’ to emphasize 

that the collaboration itself must be 

exemplary. (2) We have revised 

paragraph (a)(1) of the Final Program 

Requirements section of this notice to 

clarify that eligible applicants must be 

high-quality charter schools. (3) We 

have included a definition of ‘‘highquality charter school’’ in this notice. 

Our definition is similar to the 

definition of ‘‘high-quality charter 

school’’ provided in the notice of final 

priorities for the replication and 

expansion of high-quality charter 

schools (CFDA No.84.282M), published 

in the Federal Register on July 12, 2011 

(76 FR 40901). (4) We have changed the 

title of the first selection criterion from 

‘‘Record of and potential for success’’ to 

‘‘Record of and potential for success of 

collaboration.’’ (5) We have added a 

selection criterion, ‘‘Quality of the lead 

applicant.’’ This criterion will allow 

reviewers to provide points to 

applicants based on the extent to which 

the lead applicant is a high-quality 

charter school. 

Eligibility Requirements 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that high-performing 

magnet schools be allowed to apply for 

Collaboration Awards. They cited what 

they believe is a wealth of outstanding 

and innovative programs in magnet 

schools that are worth sharing with 

others. All three commenters noted that 

some of the Nation’s highest-quality 

schools today are magnet schools that 

began as low-performing schools with 

students from low-income families 

admitted by lottery. 

Discussion: We agree that there are 

numerous high-performing magnet 

schools that are worthy of participating 

in a collaborative initiative. Because the 

Collaboration Awards are authorized 

under the CSP, however, only charter 

schools are the lead applicants. In order 

to qualify for a Collaboration Award, a 

charter school must enter into a 

partnership with a non-chartered public 

school (as defined in this notice) or a 

non-chartered LEA (as defined in this 

notice). Magnet schools are nonchartered public schools and, as such, 

would be eligible to participate in this 

competition as partners with highquality charter schools. 

Change: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: The NPP stated in the 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements 

section that ‘‘an applicant may submit 

more than one application if each 

application proposes to carry out 

substantially different authorized 

activities.’’ We are removing this 

language from the Final Eligibility 

Requirements because applicants do not 

need specific authorization to submit 

more than one application for a 

Collaboration Award. Applicants should 

be aware, however, that it is highly 

unlikely that more than one application 

from the same applicant will be 

approved for funding because the 

Department anticipates making only a 

limited amount of funding available for 

Collaboration Awards and it is within 

the Secretary’s discretion to fund 

applications out of rank order in order 

to achieve geographic diversity. 

Change: We have removed the 

statement in the Eligibility section that 

‘‘An applicant may submit more than 

one application if each application 

proposes to carry out substantially 

different authorized activities.’’ 

Application Requirements 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise the Application 

Requirements section to include ‘‘school 

climate’’ on the list of areas that may be 

suitable for a collaboration. The 

commenter cited the recent movie 

‘‘Bully,’’ which documented the effects 

of bullying, and stated that communities 

and schools want to learn from others 

about providing all students with a safe 

learning environment. The commenter 

also cited parts of the ESEA that support 

the importance of a safe and positive 

school climate for all students. Finally, 

the commenter cited research that links 

a positive school climate to many 

indicators of a school’s success. 

Discussion: We agree that a healthy 

school climate is an important factor in 

achieving positive educational 

outcomes. Bullying is one of many 

issues (drugs and gangs are examples of 

others) that can have a negative effect on 

the school environment. 

Change: We have revised paragraph 

(a)(3) of the Final Application 

Requirements section of this notice to 

include school climate on the list of 

potential areas suitable for a 

collaboration. 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we incorporate the 

following three indicators of operational 

quality into the first proposed selection 

criterion, ‘‘Record of and potential for 

success of the collaboration’’: (1) 

Financial performance and 

sustainability; (2) performance and 

stewardship; and (3) parent and 

community engagement. The 

commenter noted that these three 

indicators were developed and 

published by a well-respected 

consortium of charter school 

organizations as a tool to help the 

charter school community determine 

operational quality. 

Discussion: We agree that indicators 

similar to those recommended by the 

commenter will help applicants 

demonstrate operational quality and 

improve the overall quality of 

applications received. Applicants can 

use these indicators to show more 

clearly the extent to which their 

proposed collaboration and 

dissemination plans will improve 

operational practices and productivity 

among all partners in the collaboration. 

Change: We have incorporated three 

indicators similar to those suggested by 

the commenter in the first selection 

criterion, ‘‘Record of and potential for 

success of the collaboration.’’ The 

element in the NPP stated: ‘‘Improved 

operational practices and productivity 

among all partners.’’ The revised 

element (B)(i) of the first selection 

criterion now reads: ‘‘Improved 

operational practices and productivity 

among all partners in such areas as 

financial performance and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
44478 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

sustainability, governing board 

performance and stewardship, and 

parent and community engagement.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we expand the first proposed 

selection criterion, ‘‘Record of and 

potential for success of the 

collaboration,’’ to include four 

indicators of academic quality: (1) 

Student achievement level; (2) student 

progress over time; (3) postsecondary 

readiness and success; and (4) student 

engagement. 

Discussion: Three of the four 

indicators that the commenter lists were 

included in the first selection criterion 

proposed in the NPP and are also 

included in the Final Selection Criteria. 

The first selection criterion contains an 

element, ‘‘Improved student 

achievement,’’ which peer reviewers 

will use to judge how the collaboration 

has improved student achievement in 

the past, as well as how it will improve 

student achievement in the future. The 

first selection criterion also addresses 

postsecondary readiness and success 

with elements such as improved high 

school graduation rates, improved rates 

of college matriculation and college 

graduation, and improved rates of 

attendance and graduation from other 

postsecondary (i.e., non-college) 

institutions or programs. However, the 

first selection criterion, as proposed, did 

not address student engagement. We 

agree with the commenter that it should 

do so and have expanded it accordingly. 

Change: We have revised element 

(B)(iii) in the first selection criterion, 

‘‘Record of and potential for success of 

the collaboration,’’ by adding two 

factors related to student engagement— 

attendance and retention. The revised 

element now reads, ‘‘Improved student 

attendance and retention, and improved 

high school graduation rates.’’ 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the NPP states that the proposed 

selection criteria for this competition 

were designed to expand the number of 

high-quality charter schools, among 

other things. The commenter stated, 

however, that the competition’s 

proposed selection criteria would not 

encourage applicants to address issues 

or undertake activities designed 

primarily to increase the number of 

high-quality charter schools. The 

commenter recommended adding a 

selection criterion aimed at encouraging 

applicants to develop a collaboration 

project that might increase the number 

of high-quality charter schools 

nationwide and improve services to 

students attending these schools. 

Specifically, the commenter 

recommended a new selection criterion 

that would reward collaborators for 

jointly: (1) Developing a process to 

ensure equitable funding for public 

charter schools and non-chartered 

public schools; (2) sharing data and 

information among schools; and (3) 

developing and implementing activities 

in schools, such as teacher professional 

development, building maintenance, 

and nutrition programs. 

Discussion: The commenter is correct 

in that one purpose of these 

Collaboration Awards is to increase 

national understanding of the charter 

school model by expanding the number 

of high-quality charter schools available 

to students nationwide. We also agree 

that the commenter’s proposed selection 

criterion (and its three elements) would 

promote this purpose. We believe, 

however, that the definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria set 

forth in this notice will be more 

effective not only in increasing the 

number of high-quality charter schools 

available to students across the Nation, 

but also, in promoting the other 

purposes of the Collaboration Awards. 

Change: Although we decline to add 

the new selection criterion proposed by 

the commenter, we have revised section 

(a)(1) of the Eligibility Requirements of 

this notice to allow public charter 

schools that do not qualify as highquality charter schools (as defined in 

this notice) to be included as partners in 

the collaboration so long as (1) the lead 

applicant is a high-quality charter 

school; (2) the lead applicant is separate 

and distinct from other charter schools 

included as partners in the 

collaboration; and (3) at least one nonchartered public school (as defined in 

this notice) or non-chartered LEA (as 

defined in this notice) also is a part of 

the collaboration. We also have added a 

sentence to section (a)(2) of the 

Eligibility Requirements section of this 

notice to clarify that public charter 

schools that are not high-quality charter 

schools are ineligible to serve as the 

lead applicant or fiscal agent; and 

revised section (b)(4) of this notice 

(Funding Restrictions) to allow 

collaborations to expand by adding 

public charter schools that are not highquality charter schools, as described in 

the grant application. We think these 

changes further support the goal of 

increasing the number of high-quality 

charter schools. 

Final Program Requirements 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following program 

requirements for the Collaboration 

Awards. We may apply one or more of 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

(a) Eligibility: 

(1) Eligible applicants must be highquality charter schools (as defined in 

this notice) that apply in partnership 

with at least one non-chartered public 

school (as defined in this notice) or nonchartered LEA (as defined in this notice) 

and have the support of the partner(s) to 

participate in the Collaboration Awards 

competition in accordance with 

requirements in the Final Application 

Requirements section of this notice. 

Other public charter schools that do not 

qualify as high-quality charter schools 

may be included in the collaboration so 

long as (1) the lead applicant is a highquality charter school; (2) the lead 

applicant is separate and distinct from 

any other charter schools included as 

partners in the collaboration; and (3) at 

least one non-chartered public school 

(as defined in this notice) or nonchartered LEA (as defined in this notice) 

also is a part of the collaboration. 

(2) The partnership must comply with 

the requirements for group applications 

set forth in 34 CFR 75.127–75.129. 

Note: Only an eligible entity (a high-quality 

charter school) may apply for a grant or be 

the fiscal agent for a grant. Thus, neither a 

non-chartered public school (as defined in 

this notice) nor a non-chartered LEA (as 

defined in this notice) is eligible to serve as 

the lead applicant or fiscal agent for a 

Collaboration Award. Nor is a public charter 

school that is not a high-quality charter 

school eligible to serve as the lead applicant 

or fiscal agent. 

(3) Eligible applicants may not have 

any significant compliance issues (as 

defined in this notice), including in the 

areas of student safety, financial 

management, and statutory or regulatory 

compliance. 

(b) Funding Restrictions: A 

Collaboration Award recipient must use 

the grant funds for one or more of the 

following: (1) Continuing the 

collaboration for which it received the 

award, as described in its grant 

application; (2) modifying the 

collaboration for which it received the 

award, as described in the grant 

application; (3) expanding the 

collaboration for which it received the 

award by adding additional areas of 

collaboration, as described in the grant 

application; (4) expanding the 

collaboration for which it received the 

award by adding additional partners 

(non-chartered public schools (as 

defined in this notice), non-chartered 

LEAs (as defined in this notice), or 

public charter schools that are not highquality charter schools), as described in 

the grant application. Collaboration 

Award recipients also must use a 

portion of the grant funds to 

disseminate information about the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 44479 

collaboration activities to other public 

schools, including public charter 

schools, non-chartered public schools 

(as defined in this notice), and nonchartered LEAs (as defined in this 

notice). All activities carried out under 

the Collaboration Awards must fall 

within the scope of authorized activities 

set forth in section 5205(a) of the ESEA. 

Final Application Requirements 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following application 

requirements for the CSP Collaboration 

Awards competition. We may apply one 

or more of these requirements in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

An applicant for a Collaboration 

Award must— 

(a) Provide a detailed narrative 

describing (1) the applicant’s past or 

existing collaboration (which may 

involve more than one partner); (2) the 

applicant’s proposal to continue, 

modify, or expand (by adding new areas 

of collaboration or new partners) the 

collaboration; and (3) the applicant’s 

plan to disseminate information about 

the collaboration (which may include 

information about best practices) to 

other public schools, including public 

charter schools, non-chartered public 

schools, and non-chartered LEAs. 

The proposed collaboration may focus 

on a wide range of areas within the 

scope of activities authorized under 

section 5205(a) of the ESEA. The list of 

potential areas includes, but is not 

limited to, curriculum and instruction, 

data management and sharing, 

organization and management, 

personnel, facilities, finances, Federal 

programs, standards, assessments, 

special education services and access to 

charter schools by students with 

disabilities, English learners, student 

transportation, professional 

development and training, and school 

climate. 

(b) Provide written assurances from 

authorized officials of the entities 

involved in the partnership that all 

participants— 

• Agree to submit an application for 

an award under the competition and 

have read, understand, and agree with 

the application for the competition; and 

• Authorize the executive summary 

or narrative of the application, with 

proprietary information redacted, to be 

published on the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Web site (ed.gov), 

data.ed.gov, the National Charter School 

Resource Center Web site 

(charterschoolcenter.org), or any other 

Web site or publication deemed 

appropriate by the Secretary; 

(c) Submit a partnership agreement 

that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 

75.128(b); 

(d) Provide a clear description of the 

goals and desired outcomes of the 

proposed collaboration and current or 

proposed measures that would be used 

to gauge success in meeting those goals 

and desired outcomes; 

(e) Describe any past, existing, or 

anticipated obstacles to implementing 

the collaboration or to disseminating 

information about the collaboration, and 

the strategies that were or will be used 

to overcome those obstacles; 

(f) Specify how the award money will 

be used to implement the collaboration 

and to disseminate information about 

the collaboration in accordance with 

section 5205(a) of the ESEA; and 

(g) Specify how the award money will 

be allocated between the lead applicant 

and the partner(s) named in the 

application, including the specific 

activities that will be carried out by the 

lead applicant and its partner(s). 

Definitions 

In addition to the definitions in 

section 5210 of the ESEA, which 

include the definition of ‘‘charter 

school,’’ we are establishing the 

following definitions for the 

Collaboration Awards competition. We 

may apply one or more of these 

definitions in any year in which we 

make awards under a Collaboration 

Awards competition. 

Collaboration means the activities of 

a partnership in which two or more 

organizations or entities work together 

to accomplish a common goal, which 

may involve sharing or transferring best 

practices or strategies. 

High-quality charter school means a 

charter school (as defined in section 

5210(1) of the ESEA) that has no 

significant compliance issue (as defined 

in this notice) and shows evidence of 

strong academic results for the past 

three years (or over the life of the school 

if the school has been open for fewer 

than three years), based on the following 

factors: 

(1) Increased student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) and attainment 

for all students, including, as 

applicable, educationally disadvantaged 

students served by the charter school. 

(2) Either— 

(i) Demonstrated success in closing 

historic achievement gaps for the 

subgroups of students described in 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA 

at the charter school; or 

(ii) No significant achievement gaps 

between any of the subgroups of 

students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the 

charter school and significant gains in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) with all populations of students 

served by the charter school. 

(3) Results (including, where 

applicable and available, performance 

on statewide tests, attendance and 

retention rates, high school graduation 

rates, college attendance rates, and 

college persistence rates) for lowincome and other educationally 

disadvantaged students served by the 

charter school that are above the average 

achievement results for such students in 

the State. 

Non-chartered local educational 

agency (LEA) means an LEA that does 

not qualify as a charter school as 

defined in section 5210(1) of the ESEA 

or under State law. 

Non-chartered public school means a 

public school that does not qualify as a 

charter school under section 5210(1) of 

the ESEA or under State law. 

Significant compliance issue means a 

violation that did, will, or could lead to 

the revocation of a school’s charter. 

Student achievement means— 

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

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under the ESEA; and (2) as 

appropriate, 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. 

Final Selection Criteria 

The Secretary establishes the 

following selection criteria for 

Collaboration Awards competitions and 

may apply one or more of these criteria 

alone or in combination with one or 

more selection criteria (1) based on the 

CSP authorizing statute or (2) in 34 CFR 

75.210, in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications or the application 

package, or both, we will announce the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

The Secretary may make awards to 

the top-rated applications proposing to 

carry out activities in specific areas of 

focus (e.g., curriculum and instruction, 

data management and sharing, 

organization and management) within 

the scope of authorized activities under 

section 5205(a) of the ESEA. In a 

particular year, the Secretary may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
44480 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

restrict applications to one or more 

areas of focus. Additionally, in making 

awards, the Secretary may fund 

applications out of rank order in order 

to ensure that the Collaboration Awards 

are distributed throughout each area of 

the Nation or a State. 

(1) Record of and potential for success 

of collaboration. (A) The extent to 

which the applicant’s past or existing 

collaboration has improved educational 

outcomes and operational practices; and 

(B) The extent to which the applicant’s 

proposed collaboration and 

dissemination plan will achieve one or 

more of the following demonstrable 

results: 

(i) Improved operational practices and 

productivity among all partners in such 

areas as financial performance and 

sustainability, governing board 

performance and stewardship, and 

parent and community engagement. 

(ii) Improved student achievement (as 

defined in this notice). 

(iii) Improved student attendance and 

retention, and improved high school 

graduation rates. 

(iv) Improved rates of college 

matriculation and college graduation. 

(v) Improved rates of attendance and 

graduation from other postsecondary 

(i.e., non-college) institutions or 

programs. 

(2) Quality of the lead applicant. (A) 

The degree, including the consistency 

over the past three years, to which the 

applicant has demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

and attainment for all students, 

including, as applicable, educationally 

disadvantaged students served by the 

charter school. 

(B) Either— 

(i) The degree, including the 

consistency over the past three years, to 

which the applicant has demonstrated 

success in closing historic achievement 

gaps for the subgroups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) 

of the ESEA at the charter school; or 

(ii) The degree, including the 

consistency over the past three years, to 

which there have not been significant 

achievement gaps between any of the 

subgroups of students described in 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA 

at the charter school and to which 

significant gains in student achievement 

(as defined in this notice) have been 

made with all populations of students 

served by the charter school. 

(C) The degree, including the 

consistency over the past three years, to 

which the applicant has achieved 

results (including, where applicable and 

available, performance on statewide 

tests, student attendance and retention 

rates, high school graduation rates, 

college attendance rates, and college 

persistence rates) for students from lowincome families and other educationally 

disadvantaged students served by the 

charter school that are above the average 

academic achievement results for such 

students attending other public schools 

in the State. 

(3) Quality of the project design. The 

extent to which the applicant proposes 

a high-quality plan to use its 

Collaboration Award funds to improve 

educational outcomes and operational 

practices in public schools, including 

public charter schools. 

(4) Potential for scalability. The extent 

to which the applicant’s proposed 

collaboration can be replicated or 

adapted beyond the participating 

partners by other public schools or 

LEAs, including public charter schools 

and charter school LEAs, and sustained 

over the long-term. 

(5) Innovation. The extent to which 

the applicant demonstrates that its 

proposed collaboration, as well as its 

dissemination plan, are either (a) 

substantially different from other efforts 

in its area of focus; or (b) substantially 

more effective than similar efforts in its 

area of focus. 

Final Definitions, Requirements, and 

Selection Criteria 

Note: 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 definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria 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 final 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 final 

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 

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 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 issuing these final definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs. In choosing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 44481 

1Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision also 

contains changes to Tennessee Chapter 1200–03– 

26—Administrative Fees Schedule provisions. EPA 

is not proposing action on this part of the submittal 

as these provisions are not part of the federallyapproved Tennessee SIP. 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

The Department believes that this 

regulatory action is consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

does not require you to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

The collection of information is 

approved under OMB control number 

1855–0026. 

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 either of the program contact 

persons 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 

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: July 25, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18573 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0080; FRL–9704–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve changes to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 

through the Division of Air Pollution 

Control to EPA on July 29, 2011. The 

July 29, 2011, SIP revision modifies 

Tennessee’s New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) programs. Tennessee’s 

July 29, 2011, SIP revision proposes to 

incorporate, into the Tennessee SIP, 

NSR provisions for PM2.5 as amended in 

EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule. Also, Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, 

SIP revision makes a corrective and 

clarifying administrative change to rule 

1200–03–09–.01. EPA is approving 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision 

because it is consistent with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective August 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0080. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Tennessee 

SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Ms. Adams’ 

telephone number is (404) 562–9214; 

email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the PM2.5

NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Mr. Huey’s 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104; 

email address: huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA is taking final action on 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision 

to adopt rules equivalent to federal 

requirements for NSR permitting.1

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision 

includes changes to Tennessee’s Air 

Quality Regulations, Chapter 1200–03– 

09—Construction and Operating 

Permits, Rule Number .01— 

Construction Permits, to adopt federal 

PSD and NNSR promulgated in the rule 

entitled ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5), ’’ Final Rule, 73 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES