59036 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(h) That the request cannot be 

satisfied to the same extent through 

requests for access to reasonably 

described records under the Freedom of 

Information Act or the mandatory 

declassification review provisions of 

Executive Order 13526. 

§ 1909.15 [Removed] 

■ 9. Remove § 1909.15. 

§ 1909.16 [Amended] 

■ 10. Revise § 1909.16 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1909.16 Action by Agency Release Panel 

(ARP). 

The ARP shall meet on a regular 

schedule and may take action when a 

simple majority of the total membership 

is present. Issues shall be decided by a 

majority of the members present. In all 

cases of a divided vote, before the 

decision of the ARP becomes final, any 

member of the ARP may by written 

memorandum to the Executive Secretary 

of the ARP, refer such matters to the 

Director, Information Management 

Services (D/IMS) for decision. In the 

event of a disagreement with any 

decision by D/IMS, Directorate heads 

may appeal to the Associate Deputy 

Director, CIA (ADD) for resolution. The 

final Agency decision shall reflect the 

vote of the ARP, unless changed by the 

D/IMS or the ADD. 

■ 11. Revise § 1909.17 as follows: 

§ 1909.17 Notification of decision. 

The Executive Secretary shall inform 

the requester of the final Agency 

decision and, if favorable, shall manage 

the access for such period as deemed 

required but in no event for more than 

two years unless renewed by the Panel 

or Board in accordance with the 

requirements of this Part. 

■ 12. Revise § 1909.18 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1909.18 Termination of access. 

The Coordinator shall cancel any 

authorization and deny any further 

access whenever the Director of Security 

cancels the security clearance of a 

requester (or research associate, if any); 

or whenever the Agency Release Panel 

determines that continued access would 

no longer be consistent with the 

requirements of this Part; or at the 

conclusion of the authorized period of 

up to two years. 

Dated: August 10, 2011. 

Joseph W. Lambert, 

Director, Information Management Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21576 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6310–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0788] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Hutchinson River, Bronx, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the Amtrak Pelham Bay 

Railroad Bridge at mile 0.5, across the 

Hutchinson River at the Bronx, New 

York. The deviation is necessary to 

facilitate scheduled maintenance at the 

bridge. This deviation allows the bridge 

to remain in the closed position for two 

days followed by a two hour advance 

notice requirement for 20 days. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

September 6, 2011 through September 

29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in 

the docket are part of docket USCG– 

2011–0788 and are available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0788 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

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 rule, call or 

e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, 

judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, or telephone 

(212) 668–7165. If you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Amtrak Pelham Bay Railroad Bridge, 

across the Hutchinson River at mile 0.5, 

at the Bronx, New York, has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position of 8 feet 

at mean high water and 15 feet at mean 

low water. The drawbridge operation 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.793. 

The waterway users are mostly 

commercial operators. 

The owner of the bridge, National 

Railroad Passenger Company (Amtrak), 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the regulations to facilitate scheduled 

maintenance, replace track ties, at 

bridge. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Amtrak Pelham Bay Railroad Bridge 

may remain in the closed position 

between September 6, 2011 and 

September 8, 2011, and from September 

9, 2011 through September 29, 2011, a 

two hour advance notice shall be 

required for bridge openings. Vessels 

that can pass under the bridge in the 

closed position may do so at any time. 

The commercial users were notified. 

No objections were received. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24417 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OS–0010] 

RIN 1894–AA03 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Program 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Interim final requirement; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2009, the 

Secretary of Education (Secretary) 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of final requirements, definitions, 

and approval criteria for the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program 

(November 2009 Notice). In that notice, 

the Secretary established September 30, 

2011 as the deadline by which States 

had to collect and publicly report data 

and other information on various SFSF 

indicators and descriptors. Since 

publication of the November 2009 

notice, States have faced many 

challenges and competing priorities in 

trying to meet the requirements of some 

of the SFSF indicators by the September 

30, 2011 deadline. As a result, a number 

of States will be unable to comply fully 

with the SFSF requirements by the 

September 30, 2011 deadline. 

Accordingly, in this interim final 

requirement, the Secretary extends that 

deadline to January 31, 2012. 

DATES: This interim final requirement is 

effective September 23, 2011. We must 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59037 

receive your comments on or before 

October 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund—Interim Final 

Requirement’’ at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about the interim final 

requirement, address them to Office of 

the Deputy Secretary (Attention: State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund Interim Final 

Requirement), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler, State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Program, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., 

room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202– 

0008. Telephone: (202) 260–9737 or by 

e-mail: SFSFcomments@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

interim final requirement to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and Executive Order 13563 and their 

overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

this interim final requirement. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this regulatory action by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the public comments in person in room 

7E214, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

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

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request, we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Background 

Section 14005(d) of Division A of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a State 

receiving funds under the SFSF program 

to provide assurances in four key areas 

of education reform: 

(1) Achieving equity in teacher 

distribution, (2) improving collection 

and use of data, (3) standards and 

assessments, and (4) supporting 

struggling schools. In the November 

2009 Notice (74 FR 58436), we 

established specific data and 

information requirements (assurance 

indicators and descriptors) that a State 

must meet with respect to the statutory 

assurances. We also established specific 

requirements for the plans that a State 

had to submit as part of its application 

for the second phase of funding under 

the SFSF program, describing the steps 

it would take to collect and report the 

required data and other information. In 

addition, we established September 30, 

2011 as the deadline by which States 

must meet the requirements of these 

indicators and descriptors. 

States are facing many challenges and 

competing priorities in trying to meet 

the requirements of some of the SFSF 

indicators by the September 30, 2011 

deadline. For example, during the 

Department’s ongoing program 

monitoring, States are expressing 

concerns about their ability to fully 

develop and implement a statewide 

longitudinal data system (SLDS) under 

Indicator (b)(1) by this deadline. 

Specifically, during its spring 2011 

review of each State’s Amended 

Application for Funding Under the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program, the 

Department found that many States still 

have not fully incorporated the 

following elements into their SLDS: (1) 

Student-level transcript information, 

including data on courses completed 

and grades earned (Element 9); (2) 

information regarding the extent to 

which students transition successfully 

from secondary school to postsecondary 

education, including whether students 

enroll in remedial coursework (Element 

11); and (3) other information 

determined necessary to address 

alignment and adequate preparation for 

success in postsecondary education 

(Element 12). A number of States also 

are raising concerns about the 

challenges in collecting and publicly 

reporting student enrollment data for 

Indicator (c)(11). In its recent review of 

the SFSF amended applications, the 

Department found that 43 States 

indicated that they did not have the 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

those data. Further, most States reported 

in their amended SFSF application that 

they do not yet have the capacity to 

collect and publicly report the course 

completion data required under 

Indicator (c)(12). Therefore, the 

Department is extending to January 31, 

2012 the deadline by which a State must 

comply with the requirements under 

any of the SFSF indicators and 

descriptors. The extension of the 

deadline to January 31, 2012 is 

automatic, and a State does not have to 

submit a request to receive this 

extension. 

In a notice of proposed revisions to 

certain data collection and reporting 

requirements, and proposed priority 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, the Department is 

proposing to further extend, to 

December 31, 2012, the deadline by 

which a State must comply with the 

requirements of Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), 

and (c)(12) because the requirements 

under these indicators are particularly 

challenging. To receive an extension to 

December 31, 2012 for these specific 

indicators, the Department is proposing 

that the State submit a request that 

includes the information proposed in 

notice of proposed revisions to certain 

data collection and reporting 

requirements, and proposed priority. 

Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed 

Effective Date 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the 

Department is generally required to 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

and provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

regulations prior to establishing a final 

rule. However, we are waiving the 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

requirements under the APA. Section 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

553(b) of the APA provides that an 

agency is not required to conduct 

notice-and-comment rulemaking when 

the agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. Although these 

requirements are subject to the APA’s 

notice-and-comment requirements, the 

Secretary has determined that it would 

be impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest to conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking. 

As discussed under the heading 

‘‘Background,’’ States are facing many 

challenges and competing priorities in 

trying to meet some of the SFSF 

collection and public reporting 

requirements by the September 30, 2011 

deadline. As a result, the Department 

has concluded that it is appropriate to 

extend the deadline for the SFSF 

indicators and descriptors to January 31, 

2012. It is impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest to extend the 

September 30, 2011 deadline through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking given 

the limited amount of time remaining 

before this deadline. This interim final 

requirement will provide those States 

desiring additional time to meet the 

requirements with an extension of the 

deadline. Absent the interim final 

requirement, a number of States will be 

unable to comply fully with the SFSF 

requirements. The Department believes 

that giving the States additional time to 

meet these requirements will not 

compromise their purpose, which is to 

provide transparency on the extent to 

which a State is implementing reform 

actions for which it has provided 

assurances. 

Although the Department is adopting 

this extension on an interim final basis, 

the Department requests public 

comments on the extension. After 

consideration of public comments, the 

Secretary will publish a notice of final 

requirement concerning the deadline for 

compliance with the SFSF indicators 

and descriptors. 

The APA also requires that a 

substantive rule be published at least 30 

days before its effective date, unless the 

rule grants or recognizes an exemption 

or relieves a restriction. (5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1)). Because we are granting 

States an extension of the September 30, 

2011 deadline, the 30-day delayed 

effective date is not required. 

Accordingly, this interim final 

requirement is effective on the day it is 

published. 

Interim Final Requirement 

For the reasons discussed previously, 

the Secretary amends the requirements 

established in the November 2009 

Notice by extending the deadline by 

which a State must collect and publicly 

report data and other information on the 

SFSF indicators and descriptors from 

September 30, 2011 to January 31, 2012. 

Executive Order 12866 

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 review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

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

12866 defines ‘‘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. 

It has been determined that this 

regulatory action is significant under 

section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

Under Executive Order 12866, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits of the regulatory action to 

extend the current deadline by which a 

State must meet the requirements of the 

SFSF indicators and descriptors and 

have determined that the interim final 

requirement will not impose additional 

costs to grantees or the Federal 

government. Additionally, the 

Department has determined that this 

requirement does not unduly interfere 

with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

The Department is reinstating to 

December 15, 2011, the information 

collection under OMB Control Number 

1810–0695 requiring States to collect 

and publicly report data and other 

information annually. The Department 

has analyzed the costs of complying 

with these requirements. Some of the 

costs will be minimal and others more 

significant. As an example of a 

requirement that results in minimal 

burden and cost, States are currently 

required to report annually, through 

EDFacts (the Department’s centralized 

data collection and warehousing 

system), for the State as a whole and for 

each LEA, the number and percentage of 

core academic courses taught, in the 

highest-poverty and lowest-poverty 

schools, by teachers who are highly 

qualified. Indicator (a)(1) requires that 

they confirm the data they have 

reported, which should not be a timeconsuming responsibility. As a second 

example, the requirement to confirm the 

approval status of the State’s assessment 

system under section 1111(b)(3) of the 

ESEA, as determined by the 

Department, should also require 

minimal effort. 

Other requirements impose significant 

new costs. We strongly believe that the 

benefits to the public of these 

requirements outweigh the State and 

local implementation costs. Specifically, 

the major benefit of these requirements, 

taken in their totality, is better and more 

publicly available information on the 

status of activities related to the reform 

areas identified in the authorizing 

statute for the SFSF program. As 

described in detail later in this section, 

research indicates or suggests that 

progress on each of the reforms will 

contribute to improved student 

outcomes. The provision of better 

information (on teacher qualifications, 

teacher and principal evaluation 

systems, State student longitudinal data 

systems, State standards and assessment 

systems, student success in high-school 

and postsecondary education, efforts to 

turn around persistently lowestachieving schools, and charter school 

reforms) to policymakers, educators, 

parents, and other stakeholders will 

assist in their efforts to further the 

reforms. In addition, State reporting of 

these data will help the Department 

determine the impact of the 

unprecedented level of funding made 

available by the ARRA. Further, the data 

and plans that States submit will inform 

Federal education policy, including the 

upcoming reauthorization of the ESEA. 

The following is a detailed analysis of 

the estimated costs of implementing the 

specific final requirements, followed by 

a discussion of the anticipated benefits. 

The costs of implementing specific 

paperwork-related requirements are also 

shown in the tables in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 section of this 

notice. 

Distribution of Highly Qualified 

Teachers 

Section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA 

requires a State receiving funds under 

the SFSF program to assure, in the SFSF 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59039 

1State Teacher Policy Yearbook: 2009, page 170. 

http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/reports/ 

stpy_national.pdf. 

2See http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/ 

TheWidgetEffect.pdf. 

program application, that it will address 

inequities in the distribution of highly 

qualified teachers. In response to this 

requirement, the Department is 

requiring States to confirm, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State, the 

number and percentage of core 

academic courses taught, in the highestpoverty and lowest-poverty schools, by 

teachers who are highly qualified. 

Because States will have previously 

submitted this information to the 

Department through the EDFacts 

system, we anticipate that the costs of 

complying with this requirement would 

be minimal. A State likely would need 

only to ensure that it had correctly 

aggregated and reported data received 

from its LEAs. The Department expects 

that each State would require one hour 

of staff time to complete this effort, at 

a cost of $30 per hour. For the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico, the total estimated level of effort 

would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560. 

In addition, the final requirements 

provide for States to indicate whether 

the State’s Teacher Equity Plan (a part 

of the State’s Highly Qualified Teacher 

Plan) has been updated to fully reflect 

the steps the State is currently taking to 

ensure that students from low-income 

families and minority students are not 

taught at higher rates than other 

students by inexperienced, unqualified, 

or out-of-field teachers. The Department 

expects that this will require an hour of 

effort, for a total estimated burden of 52 

hours at a cost of $1,560. 

Teacher and Principal Evaluation 

Systems 

Section 14005(d)(2) also requires 

States to take actions to improve teacher 

effectiveness. To accomplish that goal, 

States must first have a means of 

assessing teacher success. A limited 

number of States have implemented 

statewide teacher and principal 

evaluation systems, while in the other 

States the responsibility for evaluating 

teachers and principals rests with the 

LEAs or schools. Little is known about 

the design of these systems across the 

Nation, but the collection and reporting 

of additional information would create 

a resource that additional States and 

LEAs can draw on in building their own 

systems. The Department, therefore, is 

requiring States to collect and publicly 

report information about these 

evaluation systems. 

Specifically, the Department is 

requiring that States describe, for each 

LEA in the State, the systems used to 

evaluate the performance of teachers 

and principals. Further, the Department 

requires States to indicate, for each LEA 

in the State, whether the systems used 

to evaluate the performance of teachers 

and principals include student 

achievement outcomes or student 

growth data as an evaluation criterion. 

The level of effort required to respond 

to these requirements would likely vary 

depending on the types of teacher and 

principal evaluation systems in place in 

a given State or LEA. The Department 

believes that, if a system is in place at 

the State level, the response burden 

would be low, because the State will 

have the required information readily 

available. According to the National 

Council on Teacher Quality, 12 States 

require LEAs to use a State-developed 

instrument to evaluate teachers or to 

develop an equivalent instrument that 

must be approved by the State.1 For 

these 12 States, the Department 

estimates that a total of 72 hours (6 

hours per State) would be required to 

respond to these requirements, for a 

total cost, at $30 per hour, of $2,160. 

The 2,487 LEAs located in these States 

would not be involved in the response 

to these requirements. 

In the 40 States that do not have 

statewide teacher and principal 

evaluation systems in place, the level of 

effort required would likely be 

significantly higher. Approximately half 

of these States have either already 

reported this information once or have 

completed more than half of the effort 

involved with reporting. The 

Department believes that these States 

would require significantly less effort 

than States that have completed less 

than half of the work involved with 

meeting these requirements. The 

Department estimates that each State 

that has completed more than half of the 

work associated with these 

requirements would need 120 hours to 

meet the requirements, and each State 

that has completed less than half of the 

work would require 360 hours to meet 

the requirements. Thus, the Department 

estimates that, on average, 240 hours 

would be required at the State level to 

develop and administer a survey of 

LEAs (including designing the survey 

instrument, disseminating it, providing 

training or other technical assistance to 

LEAs on completing the survey, 

collecting the data and other 

information, checking accuracy, and 

public reporting), which would amount 

to a total of 9,600 hours and a total 

estimated State cost of $288,000 

(assuming, again, a cost per hour of 

$30). The 12,737 LEAs located in these 

States would bear the cost of collecting 

and reporting the data to their States. 

For the purpose of the burden 

estimates in this section, the 

Department estimates that 75 percent of 

these LEAs (9,553) have centralized 

teacher and principal evaluation 

systems in place. For those LEAs, we 

estimate that 3 hours would be required 

to respond to these requirements. For 

the estimated 3,184 LEAs that do not 

have a centralized evaluation system in 

place, we estimate that 2 hours would 

be required because we expect that 

these systems are less complex than 

centralized systems. The Department, 

thus, estimates that LEAs would need to 

spend a total of 35,027 hours to respond 

to these proposed requirements at a total 

cost of $875,675, assuming a cost per 

hour of $25. 

The Department is also requiring 

States to provide, for each LEA in the 

State whose teachers and principals 

receive performance ratings or levels 

through an evaluation system, the 

number and percentage of teachers and 

principals rated at each performance 

rating or level, as well as a description 

of how each LEA uses results from those 

systems in decisions regarding teacher 

and principal development, 

compensation, promotion, retention, 

and removal. Finally, the Department is 

requiring States to indicate, for each 

LEA in the State whose teachers receive 

performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, whether the number 

and percentage of teachers rated at each 

performance rating or level are publicly 

reported for each school in the LEA. The 

Department expects that many LEAs 

that make this information publicly 

available will choose to do so on their 

pre-existing Web site; if any LEAs 

currently do not have Web sites, they 

may create a Web site or may publicly 

report this information in another easily 

accessible format. 

We were unable to find nationally 

representative information on whether 

LEAs will have information on their 

teacher and principal evaluation 

systems readily available in a 

centralized database. The New Teacher 

Project (NTP),2 which analyzed the 

teacher evaluation systems of a sample 

of 12 LEAs, found that of those 12 LEAs, 

only 4 tracked teacher evaluation results 

electronically. Although the NTP report 

examined only a small number of LEAs, 

which were not nationally 

representative, and the report was 

published in 2009, we base our cost 

estimates on this finding, as it is the 

only source of information available. 

Thus, we assume that 33 percent of 

LEAs will have information on the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3 It is important to note that this study includes 

in its sample only medium-size and large LEAs and, 

therefore, that the actual percentage of LEAs with 

teacher and principal evaluation results in a central 

database may be lower than 33 percent. We also 

believe, however, that small LEAs with fewer 

teachers and principals would require less effort 

than a medium-size or large LEA to comply with 

these requirements. 

4See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/ 

tables/dt10_004.asp?referrer=list. The most recent 

data available is from 2008. 

5See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/ 

tables/dt10_089.asp?referrer=list . The most recent 

data available is for the 2007–08 school year. 

teacher and principal evaluation results 

in a central database.3 Applying this 

percentage to the estimated 12,040 LEAs 

that have in place a centralized system 

to evaluate teacher and principal 

performance (which includes the 2,487 

LEAs in States with statewide systems, 

as well as the estimated 9,553 LEAs in 

other States that have their own local 

systems), the Department estimates that 

3,973 LEAs would need to spend 

3 hours each to respond to these 

requirements for a total burden of 

11,919 hours and $297,975. 

We estimate that each of the other 

8,067 LEAs will require significantly 

more time to respond. According to the 

Digest of Education Statistics, there are 

approximately 3.2 million teachers and 

90,470 principals in public elementary 

and secondary schools.4 5 Based on this 

figure, we estimate that an average LEA 

employs 210 teachers and 6 principals. 

Applying this number of teachers and 

principals to the estimated 8,067 LEAs 

nationwide that do not have this 

information electronically in a central 

system, we estimate that these LEAs 

will need to enter data for 1,694,070 

teachers and 48,402 principals into their 

existing personnel systems. We estimate 

that LEAs could enter information for 6 

individuals per hour, thus we estimate 

that these LEAs would have a combined 

burden of 290,412 hours at a cost of 

$7,260,300. 

We further estimate that all 15,224 

LEAs would each require 1 hour to 

describe how they use results from 

teacher and principal evaluation 

systems in decisions regarding teacher 

and principal development, 

compensation, promotion, retention, 

and removal. 

The Department, therefore, estimates 

the total LEA burden for these 

requirements to be 317,555 hours across 

the Nation at an estimated total cost of 

$7,938,875 (assuming a cost per hour of 

$25). 

States would then need to collect 

these data, most likely by including 

these items in the survey instrument 

that they will develop to respond to the 

other requirements in this section, and 

will then need to aggregate and publicly 

report the data on their Web site. 

Considering progress that States have 

made to date, we estimate that these 

activities will require 4 hours of effort 

per State, for a total burden of 208 hours 

at a cost of $6,240. 

For more detailed estimates of costs 

for these requirements, please see the 

tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 section of this notice. 

State Data Systems 

Section 14005(d)(3) requires States to 

assure that they will establish a 

longitudinal data system that includes 

the elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act. To track State progress 

in this reform area, the Department 

requires each State to indicate which of 

the 12 elements are included in the 

State’s statewide longitudinal data 

system. The costs of reporting this 

information should be minimal. 

Moreover, most States are already 

reporting information on ten of the 12 

elements to the Data Quality Campaign, 

a national effort to encourage State 

policymakers to use high-quality 

education data to improve student 

achievement, and to the Department as 

part of reporting for this program to 

date. The Department expects that 

States will be able to readily provide 

information on whether the two 

remaining elements are included in 

their data systems and that it should 

take little time for the States that have 

not been reporting to the Data Quality 

Campaign to provide information on 

their data systems. We, therefore, 

estimate that States would need only 2 

hours to respond to this requirement, for 

a total level of effort of 104 hours at an 

estimated cost of $3,120. 

The Department is also requiring that 

States report whether the State provides 

student growth data on their current 

students and the students they taught in 

the previous year to, at a minimum, 

teachers of reading/language arts and 

mathematics in grades in which the 

State administers assessments in those 

subjects in a manner that is timely and 

informs instructional programs. The 

Department believes that making such 

information available would help 

improve the quality of instruction and 

the quality of teacher evaluation and 

compensation systems. Under the State 

Plan section, we discuss the costs of 

developing systems for the provision of 

student growth data in all States. We are 

also requiring States to indicate whether 

the State provides teachers of reading/ 

language arts and mathematics in grades 

in which the State administers 

assessments in those subjects with 

reports of individual teacher impact on 

student achievement on those 

assessments. The costs of merely 

publicly reporting on whether a State 

currently provides this information to 

teachers should be minimal. We 

estimate that each State would spend 

one hour to publicly report this 

information, for a total level of effort of 

52 hours at a cost of $1,560. 

State Assessments 

In response to the requirement in 

section 14005(d)(4)(A) of the ARRA that 

States enhance the quality of their 

student assessments, the Department 

requires that the States confirm certain 

existing data and other information and 

submit some new information about 

their assessment systems. Specifically, 

the Department requires each State to 

confirm the approval status, as 

determined by the Department, of the 

State’s assessment system (with respect 

to reading/language arts, mathematics, 

and science assessments). In addition, 

States will confirm that their annual 

State Report Card (issued pursuant to 

the requirements of section 1111(h) of 

the ESEA) contains the most recent 

available State reading and mathematics 

NAEP results. The Department estimates 

that each State would require two hours 

to respond to these requirements, for a 

total cost of $3,120. 

Section 14005(d)(4)(B) requires States 

to assure that they will administer valid 

and reliable assessments for children 

with disabilities and limited English 

proficient students. To measure State 

progress on this assurance, the 

Department requires States to: confirm 

whether the State has developed and 

implemented valid and reliable 

alternate assessments for students with 

disabilities that have been approved by 

the Department; confirm whether the 

State’s alternative assessments for 

students with disabilities, if approved 

by the Department, are based on gradelevel, modified, or alternate academic 

achievement standards; indicate 

whether the State has completed, within 

the last two years, an analysis of the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of the 

accommodations it provides students 

with disabilities to ensure their 

meaningful participation in State 

assessments; indicate whether the State 

has completed, within the last two 

years, an analysis of the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of the 

accommodations it provides limited 

English proficient students to ensure 

their meaningful participation in State 

assessments; and confirm whether the 

State provides native language versions 

of State assessments for limited English 

proficient students. To respond to these 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59041 

6The student subgroups include: economically 

disadvantaged students, students from major racial 

and ethnic groups, students with limited English 

proficiency, and students with disabilities. 

7http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/ 

stateanalysis/executive_summary/. 8According to data States submitted to the 

Department, there are a total of 15,224 LEAs across 

the Nation, 14,171 of which receive Title I, Part A 

funds. 

9According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

2008, approximately 3 million first-time freshmen 

enrolled in IHEs in fall 2007. See http:// 

nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/ 

dt09_199.asp. Also according to the Digest, in fall 

2005, 859,800 students were enrolled in private 

secondary schools. At that time, enrollment in 

public secondary schools was 14,908,126. 

Extrapolating from those data, the Department 

estimates that 94 percent of all first-time 

postsecondary students graduated from public 

schools. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 

d08/tables/dt08_058.asp. 

10http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/ 

dt09_223.asp. 

five indicators, the Department 

estimates that the 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would 

each require five hours, for a total cost 

of $7,800. 

In addition, the Department requires 

that States confirm the number and 

percentage of students with disabilities 

and limited English proficient students 

who are included in State reading/ 

language arts and mathematics 

assessments. The Department expects 

that each State would, on average, 

require one hour of staff time to 

complete this effort, at a cost of $30 per 

hour. The burden estimated for this 

requirement is minimal because the 

States will have already submitted this 

information to the Department through 

the EDFacts system. For the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico, the total estimated level of effort 

would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560. 

High School and Postsecondary Success 

Section 14005(d)(4)(C) of the ARRA 

requires States to assure that they take 

steps to improve their State academic 

content standards and student academic 

achievement standards consistent with 

section 6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the 

COMPETES Act, which calls for States 

to identify and make any necessary 

changes to their secondary school 

graduation requirements, academic 

content standards, academic 

achievement standards, and the 

assessments students take preceding 

graduation from secondary school in 

order to align those requirements, 

standards, and assessments with the 

knowledge and skills necessary for 

success in academic credit-bearing 

coursework in postsecondary education, 

in the 21st century workforce, and in 

the Armed Forces without the need for 

remediation. Several of the indicators 

and descriptors with which a State must 

comply are aligned with this provision 

of the America COMPETES Act. 

First, the Department requires each 

State to publicly report, for the State 

and each LEA and high school in the 

State and, at each of these levels, by 

student subgroup,6 the number and 

percentage of students who graduate 

from high school as determined using 

the four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate. State efforts to comply with the 

Department’s October 29, 2008 

regulation requiring the use of a fouryear adjusted cohort graduation rate in 

the determination of adequate yearly 

progress under Title I of the ESEA are 

now underway (see 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(i)). Some additional effort 

would be required to collect and report 

these data for all schools as the current 

regulations apply only to Title I schools. 

Based on the Data Quality Campaign’s 

2010 survey of the 50 States and the 

District of Columbia, which found that 

all States have the capacity to calculate 

the National Governors Association 

longitudinal graduation rate,7 the 

Department believes that most States are 

well-situated to collect and publicly 

report these data. In fulfillment of the 

requirement, the Department estimates 

that States would need to distribute to 

non-Title I LEAs the survey instrument 

they are using to collect this information 

from Title I LEAs and to input the data 

from these surveys. The Department 

believes the 25 States that have already 

met this requirement once and the 20 

more that have reported completing 

more than half of the effort involved 

would require less effort than States that 

have completed less than half of the 

work involved with meeting this 

requirement. The Department estimates 

that each State that has completed more 

than half of the work associated with 

these requirements would need 2 hours 

to meet the requirements, and each State 

that has completed less than half of the 

work would require 8 hours to meet the 

requirements. Thus, the Department 

estimates that this would require an 

estimated average of approximately 3 

hours per State. The new LEA burden to 

respond to this indicator would be 

limited to the approximately 1,053 LEAs 

that do not receive Title I funds.8 The 

Department estimates that these LEAs 

would spend an average of 40 hours to 

respond to this indicator for a total LEA 

effort of 42,120 hours. The total 

estimated cost for LEAs is, therefore, 

$1,053,000. 

In addition, the Department is 

requiring States to publicly report, for 

the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at 

each of these levels, by student 

subgroup, the number and percentage of 

students who graduate from high school 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) 

who enroll in an IHE within 16 months 

of receiving a regular high school 

diploma and, of those students who 

enroll in a public IHE within the State, 

the number and percentage who 

complete at least one year’s worth of 

college credit (applicable to a degree) 

within two years of enrollment in the 

IHE. The requirements would entail 

considerable coordination among high 

schools, LEAs, SEAs, and IHEs. The 

Department expects that SEAs would 

have to develop a system to make this 

data collection and sharing possible, 

which they could at least partially 

achieve by establishing a longitudinal 

data system that includes the elements 

described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the 

COMPETES Act. As discussed earlier, 

section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA 

requires States to assure, in their SFSF 

application, that they will establish 

such a data system. 

With respect to the requirement on 

publicly reporting postsecondary 

enrollment, the Department expects that 

LEAs will need to enter, into their 

State’s statewide longitudinal data 

system, data on each high school 

graduate’s plans after high school, 

including the IHE where the student 

intends to enroll, if applicable. Based on 

data from the Digest of Education 

Statistics, the Department estimates that 

approximately 2,820,000 students who 

graduated from public high schools 

enrolled in IHEs as first-time freshmen 

in fall 2007.9 Holding that number 

constant, the Department estimates that 

LEAs will be able to enter data for these 

students at a pace of 20 students per 

hour which will result in a total level of 

LEA effort of 141,000 hours at a cost of 

$3,525,000. 

The State will then likely need to 

request that each IHE in the State 

confirm a student’s enrollment, using 

the statewide longitudinal data system 

to obtain data on students who intended 

to enroll within the State. Based on data 

from the 2008 Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 

2009,10 the Department estimates that 

2,284,200 first-time freshmen (81 

percent of the estimated number of all 

first-time freshmen who graduate from 

public high schools) enroll in degreegranting IHEs in their home State. The 

Department estimates that IHEs will be 

able to confirm enrollment for 20 

students per hour, for a total of 114,210 

hours of IHE effort at a total cost of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

11Note that a table in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 section of this notice provides the 

burden estimates by IHE, but that this narrative 

provides national estimates using the total number 

of students included in the data requirement. 

12According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

2009, 2,240,414 first-time freshmen enrolled in 

public, degree-granting IHEs in fall 2008, which 

represented 74 percent of all first-time freshmen. 

See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/ 

dt09_199.asp. Also in fall 2008, 2,109,931 freshmen 

who graduated from high school within the last 12 

months attended degree-granting IHEs in their 

home State, which represented 81 percent of all 

freshmen. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 

d09/tables/dt09_223.asp. 1. An estimate of the 

number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public, 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be 

derived two ways. Applying the percentage of firsttime freshmen attending public degree-granting 

IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending 

an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 

1,508,484, and applying the percentage of first-time 

freshmen attending an IHE in their home State to 

the number of first-time freshmen attending public 

degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 

2,169,077. For the purposes of this estimate, the 

Department chooses the midpoint of these figures, 

which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate 

(described earlier) that 94 percent of all first-time 

postsecondary students graduated from public 

schools, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 

public high school graduates enroll in public 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State. 

$2,855,250 (assuming a cost of $25 per 

hour).11

States will also likely need to request 

that IHEs outside the State confirm the 

enrollment of students who indicated 

that they would enroll in those 

institutions. Again, based on data from 

the 2008 IPEDS, Spring 2009, the 

Department estimates that 535,800 

students who graduate from public high 

schools each year enroll in IHEs in 

States outside their home State. The 

Department estimates that it will take 

States 30 minutes per student to 

complete this process, including 

contacting out-of-State IHEs, obtaining 

the necessary information from them, 

and including data on those students in 

their public reports. This element of the 

requirement, therefore, will result in a 

national total of 267,900 hours of State 

effort at a total cost of $8,037,000. As 

with students who enroll in IHEs in 

their home State, the Department 

estimates that IHEs will be able to 

confirm enrollment for 20 students per 

hour, for a total of 26,790 hours of IHE 

effort at a total cost of $669,750. 

Finally, to meet the requirement that 

they publicly report the number of 

students who enroll in IHEs, States will 

need to aggregate the data received from 

all IHEs and will then need to run 

analyses and publicly report the data for 

the State, for each LEA, for each high 

school and, at each of these levels, by 

student subgroup. The Department 

estimates that each State will need 40 

hours to conduct these analyses and 

publicly report these data, for a total 

State burden of 2,080 hours at a cost of 

$62,400. 

The requirement that States publicly 

report the number of students enrolling 

in a public, in-State IHE who complete 

at least one year’s worth of college 

credit applicable toward a degree within 

two years of enrollment at the IHE will 

also entail a collaborative process 

between SEAs and IHEs. Again, based 

on data from the Digest of Education 

Statistics, the Department estimates that 

1,691,678 first-time freshmen enroll in 

public, degree-granting IHEs in their 

home State.12 Further, the Department 

estimates that, once a State has 

established a system for the collection 

and reporting of these data, IHEs will be 

able to enter data for 20 students an 

hour; thus, the total estimated level of 

effort to respond to this requirement 

will be approximately 84,584 hours of 

IHE effort at an estimated cost of 

$2,114,600, assuming a cost of $25 per 

hour. 

Finally, as with the previous 

indicator, States will need to aggregate 

the data received from all IHEs and will 

then need to run analyses and publicly 

report the data for the State, LEA, and 

school levels and at each of these levels, 

by student subgroup. The Department 

estimates that each State will need 40 

hours to conduct these analyses and 

publicly report these data, for a total 

State burden of 2,080 hours at a cost of 

$62,400. 

Supporting Struggling Schools 

A key goal of the ARRA is to ensure 

that States and LEAs provide targeted, 

intensive support and effective 

interventions to turn around the 

persistently lowest-achieving schools in 

the State. Section 14005(d)(5) requires 

States to ensure compliance with the 

Title I requirements in this area. To 

track State progress, the Department is 

requiring States to provide, for each 

LEA in the State and aggregated at the 

State level, the number and percentage 

of schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that have made 

progress on State assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

in the last year, and, for the State, in the 

‘‘all students’’ category and for each 

student subgroup (as under section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA), and, of 

the Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, the 

number and identity of the persistently 

lowest-achieving schools as defined by 

the State. The State is also required to 

provide the definition that it uses to 

identify its ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ States are also 

required to publicly report the number 

and identity of their Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that are identified as 

persistently lowest-achieving and, of 

those schools, the number and identity 

of schools that have been turned 

around, restarted, closed, or transformed 

in the last year. 

The Department believes that States 

will already have available the data 

needed to report on the indicators 

related to the total number and 

percentage of schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

have made progress on State 

assessments, although they might need 

to run new analyses of the data. 

However, the Department expects that 

States will have to collect new data on 

the schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring (in general and 

in the persistently lowest-achieving 

schools) that have been turned around, 

restarted, closed, or transformed. (In 

addition, the State will need to define 

the term ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

schools.’’) We estimate that this data 

collection will entail two hours of effort 

in each of the 4,729 LEAs (the number 

of LEAs that, according to data reported 

to EDFacts, had at least one school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the 2010–11 school 

year). As a result, the Department 

estimates that the total LEA burden for 

this requirement will be 9,458 hours at 

a cost of $236,450. States will then need 

to aggregate these data, in addition to 

the effort they will spend responding to 

the other indicators that relate to 

struggling schools. Approximately 40 

States have either already submitted this 

information once or have completed 

more than 50 percent of the effort to 

meet the requirement. As a result, the 

Department estimates that these States 

will require less effort than the other 12 

to meet this reporting requirement. The 

Department estimates that, on average, 

each State will require 14 hours of effort 

to respond to these requirements, for a 

total cost of $21,840. 

In addition, the Department is 

requiring States to provide, for the State, 

the number and identity of the 

secondary schools that are eligible for, 

but do not receive, Title I funds, that are 

identified as persistently lowestachieving schools, and, of these schools, 

the number and identity of schools that 

have been turned around, restarted, 

closed, or transformed in the last year. 

The Department expects that some, but 

not all, States have the data required to 

determine the identity of secondary 

schools that are eligible for, but do not 

receive, Title I funds, but that they may 

have to run new analyses of the data to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59043 

13For example, see http:// 

dataqualitycampaign.org/files/publicationsdqc_academic_growth-100908.pdf and http:// 

www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/MeetingsDQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_092506.pdf. 

14See: Braun, Henry I. Using Student Progress To 

Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added 

Models. Educational Testing Service, Policy 

Information Center, 2005; Marsh, Julie A.; Pane, 

John F.; Hamilton, Laura S. Making Sense of DataDriven Decision Making in Education: Evidence 

from Recent RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 2006; and Sanders, William L. 

‘‘Value-Added Assessment from Student 

Achievement Data: Opportunities and Hurdles.’’ 

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 

14, No. 4, p. 329–339, 2000. 

15Center for Educator Compensation Reform: 

http://cecr.ed.gov/. 

determine which of these schools have 

been turned around, restarted, closed, or 

transformed in the last year. Other 

States may have to include an item in 

the LEA survey that they will be 

distributing to respond to several of 

these requirements. Based on State 

efforts to report on these two indicators 

to date, the Department estimates that 

each State will require an average of 

8 hours of effort to respond to these two 

requirements, for a total cost of $12,480. 

We further estimate that the 4,729 

affected LEAs will need a total of 4 

hours to respond to these two survey 

items. 

Charter Schools 

The Department believes that the 

creation and maintenance of highquality charter schools is a key strategy 

for promoting successful models of 

school reform. To determine the level of 

State effort in this area, the Department 

is requiring States to provide, at the 

State level and, if applicable, for each 

LEA in the State, the number of charter 

schools that are currently permitted to 

operate under State law and the number 

that are currently operating. We expect 

that this information will be readily 

available and that States will need only 

a total of one hour to respond to these 

two requirements. 

In addition, the Department will 

require States to provide, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State that 

operates charter schools, the number 

and percentage (including numerator 

and denominator) of charter schools that 

have made progress on State 

assessments in reading/language arts 

and mathematics in the last year. 

Finally, the Department is requiring 

States to provide, for the State and for 

each LEA in the State that operates 

charter schools, the number and identity 

of charter schools that have closed 

(including schools that were not 

reauthorized to operate) within each of 

the last five years and to indicate, for 

each such school, whether the closure 

was for financial, enrollment, academic, 

or other reasons. The Department 

believes that SEAs will likely also have 

this information readily available 

(although some may need to obtain 

additional information from their LEAs) 

and will need eight hours to publicly 

report it. The Department assumes that 

the effort to respond to these 

requirements will be limited to the 42 

States (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico) that allow 

charter schools. The Department thus 

estimates that the State effort required to 

respond to these indicators will total 

336 hours at a cost of $10,080. 

Total Estimated Costs 

The Department estimates that the 

total burden of responding to these 

requirements will be 287,424 hours and 

$8,622,720 for SEAs, 564,076 hours and 

$14,101,900 for LEAs, and 225,584 

hours and $5,639,600 for IHEs, for a 

total burden of 1,077,084 hours at a cost 

of $28,364,220. 

Benefits 

The principal benefits of the 

requirements are those resulting from 

the reporting and public availability of 

information on each State’s progress in 

the four reform areas described in the 

ARRA. The Department believes that the 

information gathered and reported as a 

result of these requirements will 

improve public accountability for 

performance, help States, LEAs, and 

schools learn from one another and 

make improvements in what they are 

doing, and inform the ESEA 

reauthorization process. 

A second major benefit is that better 

public information on State and local 

progress in the four reform areas will 

likely spur more rapid progress on those 

reforms, because States and LEAs that 

appear to be lagging in one or more 

areas may see a need to redouble their 

efforts. The Department believes that 

more rapid progress on the essential 

educational reforms will have major 

benefits nationally, and that these 

reforms have the potential to drive 

dramatic improvements in student 

outcomes. 

For example, statewide longitudinal 

data systems are essential tools in 

advancing education reform. With these 

systems in place, States can use this 

data to evaluate the effectiveness of 

specific interventions, schools, 

principals, and teachers by tracking 

individual student achievement, high 

school graduation, and postsecondary 

enrollment and credit. They can, for 

example, track the academic 

achievement of individual students over 

time, even if those students change 

schools within the State during the 

course of their education. By analyzing 

this information, decision-makers can 

determine if a student’s ‘‘achievement 

trajectory’’ will result in his or her being 

college- or career-ready and can better 

target services based on the student’s 

academic needs.13

The Department also believes that 

States’ implementation of these 

requirements will lead to more 

widespread development and 

implementation of better teacher and 

principal evaluation systems. In 

particular, the availability of accurate, 

complete, and valid achievement data is 

essential to implementing better systems 

of teacher and principal evaluation. 

Value-added models, for example, can 

provide an objective estimate of the 

impact of teachers on student learning 

and achievement.14 Further, they can be 

used by schools, LEAs, or States to 

reward excellence in teaching or school 

leadership, as a component of 

performance-based compensation 

systems, or to identify schools in need 

of improvement or teachers who may 

require additional training or 

professional development.15

The Department believes that the 

requirements will have additional 

benefits to the extent that they provide 

States with incentives to address 

inequities in the distribution of effective 

teachers, improve the quality of State 

assessments, and undergo intensive 

efforts to improve struggling schools. 

Numerous studies document the 

substantial impact of improved teaching 

on educational outcomes and the need 

to take action to turn around the lowestperforming schools, including high 

schools (and their feeder middle 

schools) that enroll a disproportionate 

number of the students who fail to 

complete a high school education and 

receive a regular high school diploma. 

The Department believes that more 

widespread adoption of these reforms 

would have a significant, positive 

impact on student achievement. 

Although these benefits are not easily 

quantified, the Department believes they 

will exceed the projected costs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

This helps ensure that: The public 

understands the Department’s collection 

instructions; respondents can provide 

the requested data in the desired format; 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized; collection 

instruments are clearly understood; and 

the Department can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

This Interim Final Requirement 

contains an information collection 

requirement previously approved under 

OMB control number 1810–0695. Under 

the PRA the Department has submitted 

a copy of this section to OMB for its 

review. 

A Federal agency cannot conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

In the final requirement we will 

display the control number assigned by 

OMB to any information collection 

requirement in this IFR and adopted in 

the final requirement. 

In the SFSF Phase 2 application, the 

Department established indicators and 

descriptors that required States to 

collect and publicly report data and 

other information annually. The Office 

of Management and Budget approved 

that information collection under an 

emergency review (OMB Control 

Number 1810–0695). The Department’s 

authority under that information 

collection has expired. Therefore, the 

Department is reinstating to December 

15, 2011 the information collection 

under OMB Control Number 1810–0695. 

A description of the specific 

information collection requirements is 

provided in the following tables along 

with estimates of the annual 

recordkeeping burden for these 

requirements. Included in an estimate is 

the time for collecting and tracking data, 

maintaining records, calculations, and 

reporting. The first table presents the 

estimated indicators burden for SEAs, 

the second table presents the estimated 

indicators burden for LEAs, and the 

third table presents the estimated 

indicators burden for IHEs. 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Indicators and Descriptors 

I. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR SEAS 

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$30.00) 

Indicator (a)(1) ...... Confirm, for the State, the number and percentage 

(including numerator and denominator) of core academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and 

lowest-poverty schools, by teachers who are highly 

qualified consistent with section 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA).

52 1 52 $1,560 

Indicator (a)(2) ...... Confirm whether the State’s Teacher Equity Plan (as 

part of the State’s Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) 

fully reflects the steps the State is currently taking 

to ensure that students from low-income families 

and minority students are not taught at higher rates 

than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, 

or out-of-field teachers (as required in section 

1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA).

52 1 52 1,560 

Descriptor (a)(1) ... Describe, for each local educational agency (LEA) in 

the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers and the use of results from 

those systems in decisions regarding teacher development, compensation, promotion, retention, and 

removal.

52 118 6,158 184,740 

Indicator (a)(3) ...... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers 

include student achievement outcomes or student 

growth data as an evaluation criterion.

52 4 208 6,240 

Indicator (a)(4) ...... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers rated 

at each performance rating or level.

52 2 104 3,120 

Indicator (a)(5) ...... Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers 

receive performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, whether the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of 

teachers rated at each performance rating or level 

are publicly reported for each school in the LEA.

52 1 52 1,560 

Descriptor (a)(2) ... Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems 

used to evaluate the performance of principals and 

the use of results from those systems in decisions 

regarding principal development, compensation, 

promotion, retention, and removal.

52 118 6,158 184,740 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59045 

I. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR SEAS—Continued 

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$30.00) 

Indicator (a)(6) ...... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of principals 

include student achievement outcomes or student 

growth data as an evaluation criterion.

52 4 208 6,240 

Indicator (a)(7) ...... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose principals 

receive performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of principals 

rated at each performance rating or level.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (b)(1) ...... Indicate which of the 12 elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act are 

included in the State’s statewide longitudinal data 

system.

52 2 104 3,120 

Indicator (b)(2) ...... Indicate whether the State provides student growth 

data on their current students and the students they 

taught in the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in 

grades in which the State administers assessments 

in those subjects, in a manner that is timely and informs instructional programs.

52 .5 26 780 

Indicator (b)(3) ...... Indicate whether the State provides teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in 

which the State administers assessments in those 

subjects with reports of individual teacher impact on 

student achievement on those assessments.

52 .5 26 780 

Indicator (c)(1) ...... Confirm the approval status, as determined by the 

Department, of the State’s assessment system 

under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA with respect 

to reading/language arts, mathematics, and science 

assessments.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (c)(2) ...... Confirm whether the State has developed and implemented valid and reliable alternate assessments for 

students with disabilities that are approved by the 

Department.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (c)(3) ...... Confirm whether the State’s alternate assessments for 

students with disabilities, if approved by the Department, are based on grade-level, modified, or alternate academic achievement standards.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (c)(4) ...... Indicate whether the State has completed, within the 

last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of the accommodations it provides students with disabilities to ensure their 

meaningful participation in State assessments.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (c)(5) ...... Confirm the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of students with disabilities 

who are included in State reading/language arts 

and mathematics assessments.

52 .5 26 780 

Indicator (c)(6) ...... Indicate whether the State has completed, within the 

last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of the accommodations it provides limited English proficient students to ensure 

their meaningful participation in State assessments.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (c)(7) ...... Confirm whether the State provides native language 

versions of State assessments for limited English 

proficient students that are approved by the Department.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (c)(8) ...... Confirm the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of limited English proficient 

students who are included in State reading/language arts and mathematics assessments.

52 .5 26 780 

Indicator (c)(9) ...... Confirm that the State’s annual State Report Card 

(under section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA) contains the 

most recent available State reading and mathematics National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) results as required by 34 CFR 

200.11(c).

52 1 52 1,560 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

I. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR SEAS—Continued 

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$30.00) 

Indicator (c)(10) .... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the number and 

percentage (including numerator and denominator) 

of students who graduate from high school using a 

four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as required by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i).

52 3 156 4,680 

Indicator (c)(11) .... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students 

who graduate from high school consistent with 34 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage 

(including numerator and denominator) who enroll 

in an institution of Higher education (IHE) (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, as amended (HEA)) within 16 months of 

receiving a regular high school diploma.

52 5,192 269,980 8,099,400 

Indicator (c)(12) .... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students 

who graduate from high school consistent with 34 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in a public IHE (as 

defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State 

within 16 months of receiving a regular high school 

diploma, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who complete at least 

one year’s worth of college credit (applicable to a 

degree) within two years of enrollment in the IHE.

52 40 2,080 62,400 

Indicator (d)(1) ...... Provide, for the State, the average statewide school 

gain in the ‘‘all students’’ category and the average 

statewide school gain for each student subgroup 

(as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on 

the State assessments in reading/language arts and 

for the State and for each LEA in the State, the 

number and percentage (including numerator and 

denominator) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made 

progress (as defined in this notice) on State assessments in reading/language arts in the last year.

52 5 260 7,800 

Indicator (d)(2) ...... Provide, for the State, the average statewide school 

gain in the ‘‘all students’’ category and the average 

statewide school gain for each student subgroup 

(as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on 

State assessments in mathematics and for the 

State and for each LEA in the State, the number 

and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that have made progress on 

State assessments in mathematics in the last year.

52 5 260 7,800 

Descriptor (d)(1) ... Provide the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

schools’’ (consistent with the requirements for defining this term set forth in this notice) that the State 

uses to identify such schools.

52 1 52 1,560 

Indicator (d)(3) ...... Provide, for the State, the number and identity of the 

schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, that are identified as 

persistently lowest-achieving schools.

52 2 104 3,120 

Indicator (d)(4) ...... Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowestachieving schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the 

number and identity of those schools that have 

been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed (as defined in this notice) in the last year.

52 1 52 1,560 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59047 

I. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR SEAS—Continued 

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$30.00) 

Indicator (d)(5) ...... Provide, for the State, the number and identity of the 

schools that are secondary schools that are eligible 

for, but do not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools.

52 4 208 6,240 

Indicator (d)(6) ...... Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowestachieving schools that are secondary schools that 

are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, the 

number and identity of those schools that have 

been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.

52 4 208 6,240 

Indicator (d)(7) ...... Provide, for the State and, if applicable, for each LEA 

in the State, the number of charter schools that are 

currently permitted to operate under State law.

52 .5 26 780 

Indicator (d)(8) ...... Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in the State 

that operates charter schools, the number of charter 

schools currently operating.

52 .5 26 780 

Indicator (d)(9) ...... Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State 

that operates charter schools, the number and percentage of charter schools that have made 

progress on State assessments in reading/language 

arts in the last year.

42 2 84 2,520 

Indicator (d)(10) .... Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State 

that operates charter schools, the number and percentage of charter schools that have made 

progress on State assessments in mathematics in 

the last year.

42 2 84 2,520 

Indicator (d)(11) .... Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State 

that operates charter schools, the number and identity of charter schools that have closed (including 

schools that were not reauthorized to operate) within each of the last five years.

42 2 84 2,520 

Indicator (d)(12) .... Indicate, for each charter school that has closed (including a school that was not reauthorized to operate) within each of the last five years, whether the 

closure of the school was for financial, enrollment, 

academic, or other reasons.

42 2 84 2,520 

* Figures in this column may reflect rounding. 

II. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR LEAS

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$30.00) 

Descriptor (a)(1) .. Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems 

used to evaluate the performance of teachers and 

the use of results from those systems in decisions 

regarding teacher development, compensation, 

promotion, retention, and removal.

15,224 1 .78 27,114 677,850 

Indicator (a)(3) ..... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers 

include student achievement outcomes or student 

growth data as an evaluation criterion.

12,737 .1 850 21,250 

Indicator (a)(4) ..... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose teachers 

receive performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers 

rated at each performance rating or level.

12,040 23 .7 285,000 7,125,000 

Indicator (a)(5) ..... Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers 

receive performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, whether the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of 

teachers rated at each performance rating or level 

are publicly reported for each school in the LEA.

12,040 .5 5,955 148,875 

Descriptor (a)(2) .. Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems 

used to evaluate the performance of principals and 

the use of results from those systems in decisions 

regarding principal development, compensation, 

promotion, retention, and removal.

15,224 1 .78 27,113 677,825 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

II. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR LEAS—Continued 

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$30.00) 

Indicator (a)(6) ..... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of principals include student achievement outcomes or 

student growth data as an evaluation criterion.

12,737 .1 850 21,250 

Indicator (a)(7) ..... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose principals 

receive performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of principals 

rated at each performance rating or level.

12,040 .47 5,700 142,500 

Indicator (c)(10) ... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the number 

and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of students who graduate from high school 

using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 

as required by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i).

1,053 40 42,120 1,053,000 

Indicator (c)(11) ... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent 

with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) 

who enroll in an IHE (as defined in section 101(a) 

of the HEA) within 16 months of receiving a regular 

high school diploma.

15,224 9 .26 141,000 3,525,000 

Indicator (d)(4) ..... Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowestachieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring, the number and identity of 

schools that have been turned around, restarted, 

closed, or transformed in the last year.

4,729 2 9,458 236,450 

Indicator (d)(5) ..... Provide, for the State, the number and identity of the 

secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not 

receive, Title I funds, that are identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools.

4,729 2 9,458 236,450 

Indicator (d)(6) ..... Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowestachieving secondary schools that are eligible for, 

but do not receive, Title I funds, the number and 

identity of schools that have been turned around, 

restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.

4,729 2 9,458 236,450 

*Figures in this column may reflect rounding. 

III. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR IHES

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$25.00) 

Indicator (c)(11) .... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students 

who graduate from high school consistent with 34 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage 

(including numerator and denominator) who enroll 

in an IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) 

within 16 months of receiving a regular high school 

diploma.

4,409 31.98 141,000 $3,525,000 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59049 

III. ASSURANCE INDICATORS AND DESCRIPTORS BURDEN HOURS/COST FOR IHES—Continued 

Citation Description Number of 

respondents 

Average hours 

per response* Total hours 

Total cost 

(total hours × 

$25.00) 

Indicator (c)(12) .... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for 

each high school in the State and, at each of these 

levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students 

who graduate from high school consistent with 34 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in a public IHE (as 

defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State 

within 16 months of receiving a regular high school 

diploma, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who complete at least 

one year’s worth of college credit (applicable to a 

degree) within two years of enrollment in the IHE.

1,676 50.47 84,584 2,114,600 

* Figures in this column may reflect rounding. 

If you want to comment on the 

information collection requirements, 

please send your comments to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 

Department of Education. Send these 

comments by e-mail to 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax 

to (202) 395–6974. You may also send 

a copy of these comments to the 

Department contact named in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

We have prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for this 

collection. In preparing your comments 

you may want to review the ICR, which 

we maintain in the Education 

Department Information Collection 

System (EDICS) at http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on Browse 

Pending Collections. This proposed 

collection is identified as proposed 

collection 1810–0695. 

We consider your comments on this 

collection of information in— 

• Deciding whether the collection is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

our functions, including whether the 

information will have practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the collection, 

including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in this interim final 

requirement between 30 and 60 days 

after publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure 

that OMB gives your comments full 

consideration, it is important that OMB 

receives your comments on the 

proposed collection within 30 days after 

publication. This does not affect the 

deadline for your comments to us on the 

interim final requirement. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are small LEAs 

receiving funds under this program and 

small IHEs. 

This regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

LEAs because they will be able to meet 

the costs of compliance with this 

regulatory action using the funds 

provided under this program. 

With respect to small IHEs, the U.S. 

Small Business Administration Size 

Standards define these institutions as 

‘‘small entities’’ if they are for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions, which are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000. Based on data from the 

Department’s Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), up to 

427 small IHEs with revenues of less 

than $5 million may be affected by these 

requirements; only 33 of these IHEs are 

public. These small IHEs represent only 

13 percent of degree-granting IHEs. In 

addition, only 98,032 students (0.5 

percent) enrolled in degree-granting 

IHEs in fall 2007 attended these small 

institutions; just 11,830 of these 

students are enrolled in small, degreegranting public IHEs. As the burden for 

indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) is driven 

by the number of students for whom 

IHEs would be required to submit data, 

small IHEs will require significantly less 

effort to adhere to these requirements 

than will be the case for larger IHEs. 

Based on IPEDS data, the Department 

estimates that 1,873 of these students 

are first-time freshmen. As stated earlier 

in the Summary of Costs and Benefits 

section of this notice, the Department 

estimates that, as required by indicator 

(c)(11), IHEs will be able to confirm the 

enrollment of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Applying this estimate to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

at small IHEs, the Department estimates 

that these IHEs will need to spend 94 

hours to respond to this requirement at 

a total cost of $2,350 (assuming a cost 

of $25 per hour). 

The effort involved in reporting the 

number of students enrolling in a public 

IHE in their home State who complete 

at least one year’s worth of college 

credit applicable toward a degree within 

two years as required by indicator 

(c)(12) will also apply to small IHEs, but 

will be limited to students who enroll 

in public IHEs in their home State. As 

discussed earlier in the Summary of 

Costs and Benefits section of this notice, 

the Department estimates that 81 

percent of first-time freshmen who 

graduate from public high schools enroll 

in degree-granting IHEs in their home 

State. Applying this percentage to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

enrolled in small public IHEs (1,873), 

the Department estimates that small 

IHEs will be required to report credit 

completion data for a total of 1,517 

students. For this requirement, the 

Department also estimates that IHEs will 

be able to report the credit completion 

status of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Again, applying this data entry 

rate to the estimated number of firsttime freshmen at small public IHEs in 

their home State, the Department 

estimates that these IHEs will need to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

spend 76 hours to respond to this 

requirement at a total cost of $1,900. 

The total cost of these requirements for 

small IHEs is, therefore, $4,250; $2,068 

of this cost will be borne by small 

private IHEs, and $2,182 of the cost will 

be borne by small public IHEs. Based on 

the total number of small IHEs across 

the Nation, the estimated cost per small 

private IHE is approximately $10, and 

the estimated cost per small public IHE 

is $66. The Department has, therefore, 

determined that the requirements will 

not represent a significant burden on 

small not-for-profit IHEs. It is also 

important to note that States may use 

their Government Services Fund 

allocations to help small IHEs meet the 

costs of complying with the 

requirements that affect them, and 

public IHEs may use Education 

Stabilization Fund dollars they receive 

for that purpose. 

In addition, the Department believes 

the benefits provided under this 

regulatory action will outweigh the 

burdens on these institutions of 

complying with the requirements. One 

of these benefits will be the provision of 

better information on student success in 

postsecondary education to 

policymakers, educators, parents, and 

other stakeholders. The Department 

believes that the information gathered 

and reported as a result of these 

requirements will improve public 

accountability for performance; help 

States, LEAs, and schools learn from 

one another and improve their decisionmaking; and inform Federal 

policymaking. 

A second major benefit is that better 

public information on State and local 

progress in the four reform areas will 

likely spur more rapid progress on those 

reforms, because States and LEAs that 

appear to be lagging in one area or 

another may see a need to redouble their 

efforts. The Department believes that 

more rapid progress on the essential 

educational reforms will have major 

benefits nationally, and that these 

reforms have the potential to drive 

dramatic improvements in student 

outcomes. The requirements that apply 

to IHEs should, in particular, spur more 

rapid implementation of pre-K–16 State 

longitudinal data systems. 

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 Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, 

Title XIV—State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 

Pub. L. 111–5; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.394 (Education 

Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 (Government 

Services Fund). 

Dated: September 19, 2011. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24407 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

37 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2011–0039] 

RIN 0651–AC62 

Changes To Implement the Prioritized 

Examination Track (Track I) of the 

Enhanced Examination Timing Control 

Procedures Under the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2011, the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office 

(Office) published a final rule that 

revised the rules of practice in patent 

cases to implement a procedure under 

which applicants may request 

prioritized examination at the time of 

filing of an application upon payment of 

appropriate fees and compliance with 

certain requirements (Track I final rule). 

The prioritized examination procedure 

is the first track (Track I) of a 3-Track 

examination process designed to 

provide applicants with greater control 

over when their utility and plant 

applications are examined and to 

promote greater efficiency in the patent 

examination process. The Office 

subsequently published a final rule on 

April 29, 2011, indicating that the 

effective date of the Track I final rule 

was delayed until further notice due to 

funding limitations. The Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act includes 

provisions for prioritized examination 

that emulate the requirements of the 

Office’s Track I final rule, with revised 

fee amounts for prioritized examination 

(including a small entity discount) and 

a provision that addresses the funding 

limitations that required a delay in the 

implementation of the Track I final rule. 

This final rule implements the 

prioritized examination provisions of 

section 11(h) of the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: The changes in 

this final rule are effective on September 

26, 2011. The final rule published at 76 

FR 18399–18407 on April 4, 2011, is 

withdrawn effective September 23, 

2011. 

Applicability Date: A request for 

prioritized examination may be 

submitted with any original utility or 

plant application filed on or after 

September 26, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By 

telephone to Eugenia A. Jones, at (571) 

272–7727, Kathleen Kahler Fonda, at 

(571) 272–7754, or Michael T. Cygan, at 

(571) 272–7700; or by mail addressed to: 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Mail Stop Comments—Patents, 

Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, 

marked to the attention of Eugenia A. 

Jones or Kathleen Kahler Fonda or 

Michael T. Cygan. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 

2010, the Office requested comments 

from the public on a proposal to provide 

applicants with greater control over 

when their original utility or plant 

applications are examined and promote 

work sharing between intellectual 

property offices (3-Track). See 

Enhanced Examination Timing Control 

Initiative; Notice of Public Meeting, 75 

FR 31763 (June 4, 2010). Specifically, 

the Office proposed to implement 

procedures under which an applicant 

would be able to: (1) Request prioritized 

examination of an original utility or 

plant nonprovisional application (Track 

I); (2) request a delay in docketing the 

application for examination, for an 

original utility or plant application filed 

under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), by filing a 

request for delay in payment of the 

search fee, the examination fee, the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES