Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22451 

Nutrients Unit of measurement Minimum level Maximum level 

Vitamin K ................................................................................................. Micrograms .................................... 4 ..........................

Thiamine (Vitamin B1) ............................................................................. do ................................................... 40 ..........................

Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) ............................................................................ do ................................................... 60 ..........................

Vitamin B6 ............................................................................................... do ................................................... 35 ..........................

Vitamin B12 .............................................................................................. do ................................................... 0 .15 ..........................

Niacin 1 .................................................................................................... do ................................................... 250 ..........................

Folic Acid (folacin) ................................................................................... do ................................................... 4 ..........................

Pantothenic acid ...................................................................................... do ................................................... 300 ..........................

Biotin 2 ..................................................................................................... do ................................................... 1 .5 ..........................

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) ........................................................................ Milligrams ....................................... 8 ..........................

Choline 2 .................................................................................................. do ................................................... 7 ..........................

Inositol 2 ................................................................................................... do ................................................... 4 ..........................

Minerals 

Calcium ................................................................................................... do ................................................... 60 ..........................

Phosphorus ............................................................................................. do ................................................... 30 ..........................

Magnesium .............................................................................................. do ................................................... 6 ..........................

Iron .......................................................................................................... do ................................................... 0 .15 3 .0 

Zinc .......................................................................................................... do ................................................... 0 .5 ..........................

Manganese .............................................................................................. Micrograms .................................... 5 ..........................

Copper ..................................................................................................... do ................................................... 60 ..........................

Iodine ....................................................................................................... do ................................................... 5 75 

Selenium ................................................................................................. do ................................................... 2 7 

Sodium .................................................................................................... Milligrams ....................................... 20 60 

Potassium ................................................................................................ do ................................................... 80 200 

Chloride ................................................................................................... do ................................................... 55 150 

1The generic term ‘‘niacin’’ includes niacin (nicotinic acid) and niacinamide (nicotinamide). 

2 Required only for non-milk-based infant formulas. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 10, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08855 Filed 4–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 701, 736, 737, 738, and 

750 

[Docket ID OSM–2012–0003] 

RIN 1029–AC65 

Cost Recovery for Permit Processing, 

Administration, and Enforcement 

Correction 

In proposed rule document R1–2013– 

06950, appearing on pages 20394–20408 

in the issue of Thursday, April 4, 2013, 

make the following correction: 

§ 738.11 [Corrected] 

In the table on page 20407, in the 

third row, fourth column, ‘‘1,300’’ 

should read ‘‘13,000’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–06950 Filed 4–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

RIN 1810–AB17 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OS–0050] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Race to the Top—District [CFDA 

Number: 84.416.] 

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Secretary, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria under the Race to the 

Top—District program. The Secretary 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions using funds 

from fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later 

years. The Race to the Top—District 

program builds on the experience of 

States and districts in implementing 

reforms in the four core educational 

assurance areas through Race to the Top 

and other key programs and supports 

applicants that demonstrate how they 

can personalize education for all 

students in their schools. The U.S. 

Department of Education (Department) 

conducted one competition under the 

Race to the Top—District program in FY 

2012, and we propose to maintain the 

overall purpose and structure of the FY 

2012 Race to the Top—District 

competition. These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are almost identical to the ones 

we used in the FY 2012 competition. 

We describe the changes at the 

beginning of each section of this 

document. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 16, 2013, and we 

encourage you to submit comments well 

in advance of this date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

we do not receive duplicate comments, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the phrase ‘‘Race to the 

Top—District-Comments’’ at the top of 

your comments. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ’’How to use 

Regulations.gov’’ in the Help section. 

Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or 

Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Office of the Deputy Secretary 

(Attention: Race to the Top—District— 

Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 7e208, Washington, DC 20202– 

4260. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meredith Farace. Telephone: (202) 453– 

6800 or by email: 

racetothetop.district@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary: 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The purpose of this document is to 

propose priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

Race to the Top—District competition 

that would enable effective grant 

making and result in the selection of 

high-quality applicants that propose to 

implement activities that are most likely 

to support bold, locally directed 

improvements in learning and teaching 

that would directly improve student 

achievement and educator effectiveness. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: The Race to the 

Top—District program is designed to 

build on the momentum of other Race 

to the Top competitions by encouraging 

bold, innovative reform at the local 

level. The Race to the Top—District 

competition is aimed squarely at 

classrooms and the all-important 

relationship between educators and 

students. The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in this document are almost 

identical to those we used in the FY 

2012 competition. The competition will 

again support applicants that 

demonstrate how they can personalize 

education for all students in their 

schools. 

In that regard, through this action, the 

Department will encourage and reward 

those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that 

have the leadership and vision to 

implement the strategies, structures, and 

systems needed to implement 

personalized, student-focused 

approaches to learning and teaching that 

will produce excellence and ensure 

equity for all students. The proposed 

priorities, definitions, requirements, and 

selection criteria are designed to help 

LEAs meet these goals. Most changes 

from the FY 2012 competition reflect 

minor language clarifications. The two 

more substantive changes are the 

removal of the opportunity to apply for 

an optional budget supplement and the 

reduction of the minimum and 

maximum grant amount for which an 

applicant may apply. We believe these 

proposed changes would enable the 

Department to maximize the number of 

grantees that would receive funding 

under a competition, while still 

awarding grants of sufficient size to 

support bold improvements in learning 

and teaching. 

Under Proposed Priority 1, applicants 

must design a personalized learning 

environment that uses collaborative, 

data-based strategies and 21st century 

tools such as online learning platforms, 

computers, mobile devices, and learning 

algorithms, to deliver instruction and 

supports tailored to the needs and goals 

of each student, with the aim of 

enabling all students to graduate 

college- and career-ready. 

Implementation of a personalized 

learning environment is not achieved 

through a single solution or product but 

rather requires a multi-faceted approach 

that addresses the individual and 

collective needs of students, educators, 

and families and that dramatically 

transforms the learning environment in 

order to improve student outcomes. 

Through Race to the Top—District, 

the Department proposes to continue to 

support high-quality proposals from 

applicants across a varied set of LEAs in 

order to create diverse models of 

personalized learning environments for 

use by LEAs across the Nation. For this 

reason, the Department is proposing 

four additional priorities. Proposed 

Priorities 2 through 5 would support 

efforts to expand the types of reform 

efforts being implemented in LEAs in 

States that have received a Race to the 

Top award and to LEAs in other States. 

Moreover, these proposed priorities 

would also help ensure that LEAs of 

varying sizes, both rural and non-rural, 

and with different local contexts are 

able to implement innovative 

personalized learning environments for 

their students that can serve as models 

for other LEAs and help improve 

student achievement widely. 

Finally, we propose one additional 

priority to support applicants that 

propose to extend their reforms beyond 

the classroom and partner with public 

or private entities in order to address 

the social, emotional, and behavioral 

needs of students, particularly students 

who attend a high-need school. 

Costs and Benefits: The costs imposed 

on applicants by these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and the benefits of 

implementing them would outweigh 

any costs incurred by applicants. The 

costs of carrying out activities would be 

paid for with program funds. Thus, the 

costs of implementation would not be a 

burden for any eligible applicants, 

including small entities. Please refer to 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this 

document for a more complete 

discussion of the costs and benefits of 

this regulatory action. 

This notice provides an accounting 

statement that estimates that 

approximately up to $150 million will 

transfer from the Federal Government to 

LEAs under this program. Please refer to 

the accounting statement in this 

document for a more detailed 

discussion. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways the Department could 

reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 7e208, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, 

DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 

Monday through Friday of each week 

except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22453 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Race to the Top—District program is 

to build on the lessons learned from the 

State competitions conducted under the 

Race to the Top program and to support 

bold, locally directed improvements in 

learning and teaching that will directly 

improve student achievement and 

educator effectiveness. 

Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 

14006 of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111–5), as 

amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of 

the Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 

112–10), and the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 (Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2012) (Title III of 

Division F of Pub. L. 112–74). 

Background 

The Statutory Context and Program 

Overview 

Race to the Top 

The Race to the Top program, 

authorized under the ARRA (Pub. L. 

111–5), is centered on four core 

educational reform areas: 

(a) Adopting standards and 

assessments that prepare students to 

succeed in college and the workplace 

and to compete in the global economy; 

(b) Building data systems that 

measure student growth and success 

and inform teachers and principals 

about how they can improve 

instruction; 

(c) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, 

and retaining effective teachers and 

principals, especially where they are 

needed most; and 

(d) Turning around the Nation’s 

lowest-achieving schools. 

In 2010, the Department conducted 

Race to the Top State competitions, 

which provided incentives to States to 

adopt bold and comprehensive reforms 

in elementary and secondary education 

and laid the foundation for 

unprecedented innovation. A total of 46 

States and the District of Columbia put 

together plans to implement collegeand career-ready standards, use data 

systems to guide teaching and learning, 

evaluate and support teachers and 

school leaders, and turn around their 

lowest-performing schools. The Race to 

the Top State competitions provided 

States with incentives to implement 

large-scale, system-changing reforms 

designed to improve student 

achievement, narrow achievement gaps, 

and increase graduation and college 

enrollment rates. 

The Race to the Top Assessment 

program, also authorized under the 

ARRA, supports consortia of States in 

developing new and better assessments 

aligned with high standards. 

In 2011, the ARRA was amended by 

section 1832(b) of Division B of the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(Pub. L. 112–10), which added an 

additional education reform area: 

strengthening the quality of early 

learning and development programs and 

increasing access to high-quality early 

learning programs for all children, 

including those with high needs. As a 

result, the Department had the authority 

to use a portion of the FY 2011 and FY 

2012 appropriations for Race to the Top 

on the Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge program, which is jointly 

administered by the Departments of 

Education and Health and Human 

Services. The Race to the Top—Early 

Learning Challenge supports 14 States’ 

efforts to strengthen the quality of their 

early learning programs. 

Race to the Top—District Competition 

On May 22, 2012, the Secretary 

announced the Race to the Top—District 

program, which is designed to build on 

the momentum of other Race to the Top 

competitions by encouraging bold, 

innovative reform at the local level. This 

district-level program is authorized 

under sections 14005 and 14006 of the 

ARRA, as amended by section 1832(b) 

of the Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2012. Congress 

appropriated approximately $550 

million for Race to the Top in FY 2012. 

Of these funds, the Department awarded 

approximately $383 million to 16 Race 

to the Top—District grantees 

representing 55 LEAs, with grants 

ranging from $10 to $40 million. The 

amount of an award for which an 

applicant was eligible to apply 

depended upon the number of students 

who would be served under the 

application. 

The Race to the Top—District 

competition is aimed squarely at 

classrooms and the all-important 

relationship between educators and 

students. The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in this document are almost 

identical to those we used in the FY 

2012 competition. The competition will 

again support applicants that 

demonstrate how they can personalize 

education for all students in their 

schools. 

In that regard, the Race to the Top— 

District program will encourage and 

reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs 

that have the leadership and vision to 

implement the strategies, structures, and 

systems needed to implement 

personalized, student-focused 

approaches to learning and teaching that 

will produce excellence and ensure 

equity for all students. The proposed 

priorities, definitions, requirements, and 

selection criteria in this notice are 

designed to help LEAs meet these goals. 

Under Proposed Priority 1, applicants 

must design a personalized learning 

environment that uses collaborative, 

data-based strategies and 21st century 

tools such as online learning platforms, 

computers, mobile devices, and learning 

algorithms, to deliver instruction and 

supports tailored to the needs and goals 

of each student, with the aim of 

enabling all students to graduate 

college- and career-ready. 

Implementation of a personalized 

learning environment is not achieved 

through a single solution or product but 

rather requires a multi-faceted approach 

that addresses the individual and 

collective needs of students, educators, 

and families and that dramatically 

transforms the learning environment in 

order to improve student outcomes. 

The Secretary believes that teacher 

and student classroom interaction, 

supported by strong principals and 

engaged families, is crucial to educating 

students. Teacher and student 

interactions are strengthened when an 

effective teacher has useful information 

about students’ particular needs, 

support from his or her principal or 

leadership team, a quality curriculum 

aligned with college- and career-ready 

standards, and the other tools needed to 

do the job. 

Too often, however, these supportive 

conditions have not existed in our 

schools or districts, and the results are 

painfully predictable: students fall 

behind or drop out, achievement gaps 

remain or widen, teachers get frustrated 

and leave the field, and stakeholders 

become polarized and divided under 

pressure to perform. 

That is why—for more than four 

years—the Department has supported 

bold reforms at the State and local levels 

that have reduced barriers to good 

teaching and helped create better 

conditions for learning. 

There is no single approach or 

boutique solution to implementation of 

personalized learning environments. An 

LEA or consortium of LEAs receiving an 

award under this competition will build 

on the experience of States and districts 

in implementing reforms in the four 

core educational assurance areas (as 

defined in this notice) through Race to 

the Top and other key programs. A 

successful applicant will provide 

teachers the information, tools, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

supports that enable them to meet the 

needs of each student and substantially 

accelerate and deepen each student’s 

learning. These LEAs will have the 

policies, systems, infrastructure, 

capacity, and culture to enable teachers, 

teacher teams, and school leaders to 

continuously focus on improving 

individual student achievement and 

closing achievement gaps. These LEAs 

will also make equity and access a 

priority and aim to prepare each student 

to master the content and skills required 

for college- and career-readiness, 

provide each student the opportunity to 

pursue a rigorous course of study, and 

accelerate and deepen students’ learning 

through attention to their individual 

needs. As important, they will create 

opportunities for students to identify 

and pursue areas of personal academic 

interest—all while ensuring that each 

student masters critical areas identified 

in college- and career-ready standards or 

college- and career-ready high school 

graduation requirements. 

Educators want a way to inspire and 

challenge those students who are 

furthest ahead, provide targeted help 

and assistance to those furthest behind, 

and engage fully and effectively with 

the students in the middle. To 

accomplish this objective, educators 

across the country have created 

personalized learning environments and 

used strategies that involve such 

elements as technology, virtual and 

blended learning, individual and group 

tasks, partnering with parents, and 

aligning non-school hours with the 

educational needs of students. 

Personalized learning environments 

allow students to: understand their 

individual learning goals and needs; 

access deep learning experiences that 

include individual and group tasks; and 

develop such skills and traits as goal 

setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical 

thinking, communications, creativity, 

and problem solving across multiple 

academic domains. If students are to do 

this successfully, both students and 

educators need opportunities to build 

their individual and collective capacity 

to support the implementation of 

personalized learning environments and 

strategies. 

The Race to the Top—District 

program does not create new standalone programs, or support niche 

programs or interventions. Nor is it a 

vehicle for maintenance of the status 

quo. Rather, the Race to the Top— 

District program will support LEAs that 

demonstrate their commitment to 

identifying teachers, principals, and 

schools who have a vision and the 

expertise to personalize education and 

extend their reach to all of their 

students. LEAs successfully 

implementing an approach to learning 

and teaching that includes personalized 

learning environments will lay a 

foundation for raising student 

achievement, decreasing the 

achievement gap across student groups, 

and increasing the rates at which 

students graduate from high school 

prepared for college and careers. 

The Department is also proposing to 

continue to support high-quality 

proposals from applicants across a 

varied set of LEAs in order to create 

diverse models of personalized learning 

environments for use by LEAs across the 

Nation. For this reason, the Department 

is proposing four additional priorities— 

Proposed Priorities 2 through 5— 

through which the Department will 

support efforts to expand the types of 

reform efforts being implemented in 

LEAs in States that have received a Race 

to the Top award and to LEAs in other 

States. Moreover, these proposed 

priorities would also help ensure that 

LEAs of varying sizes, both rural and 

non-rural, and with different local 

contexts are able to implement 

innovative personalized learning 

environments for their students that can 

serve as models for other LEAs and help 

improve student achievement widely. 

Finally, we proposed one additional 

priority to support applicants that 

propose to extend their reforms beyond 

the classroom and partner with public 

or private entities in order to address 

the social, emotional, and behavioral 

needs of students, particularly students 

who attend a high-need school. This 

priority aligns with other Department 

programs, such as the Promise 

Neighborhoods program, and further 

amplifies the Department’s commitment 

to improve education as well as family 

and community supports. We believe 

that this will help children and youth in 

communities with these partnerships 

access great schools and the 

complementary family and community 

supports that will help prepare them to 

attain an excellent education and 

successfully transition to college and a 

career. 

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition 

These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria maintain the overall purpose 

and structure of the FY 2012 Race to the 

Top—District competition, and include 

almost identical language to the FY 

2012 competition. At the beginning of 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

sections, we list all of the differences 

between the FY 2012 notice inviting 

applications and this document. Most 

differences reflect minor language 

clarifications or changes to ensure 

language is appropriate for a notice of 

proposed priorities, definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria, as 

compared to a notice inviting 

applications. The two more substantive 

changes are the removal of the 

opportunity to apply for an optional 

budget supplement and the reduction of 

the minimum and maximum grant 

amount for which an applicant may 

apply. We believe these proposed 

changes will enable the Department to 

maximize the number of grantees that 

receive funding under a competition, 

while still awarding grants of sufficient 

size to support bold improvements in 

learning and teaching. 

Proposed Priorities 

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition 

(a) In Proposed Priority 6, sub-bullet 

(2), we propose changing ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ 

in ‘‘educational results or other 

educational outcomes’’, and we separate 

the sentence with an ‘‘(a)’’ and ‘‘(b)’’. 

These edits do not change the meaning, 

but help to clarify that educational 

results or outcomes, and family and 

community supports, are two distinct 

categories. 

—New: ‘‘Identify not more than 10 

population-level desired results for 

students in the LEA or consortium of 

LEAs that align with and support the 

applicant’s broader Race to the Top— 

District proposal. These results must 

include both (a) educational results or 

other education outcomes (e.g., children 

enter kindergarten prepared to succeed 

in school, children exit third grade 

reading at grade level, and students 

graduate from high school college- and 

career-ready) and (b) family and 

community supports (as defined in this 

notice) results;’’ 

—Original: ‘‘Identify not more than 10 

population-level desired results for 

students in the LEA or consortium of 

LEAs that align with and support the 

applicant’s broader Race to the Top— 

District proposal. These results must 

include both educational results and 

other education outcomes (e.g., children 

enter kindergarten prepared to succeed 

in school, children exit third grade 

reading at grade level, and students 

graduate from high school college- and 

career-ready) and family and 

community supports (as defined in this 

notice) results;’’ 

Proposed priorities: The Secretary 

proposes six priorities. The Department 

may apply one or more of these 

priorities in any year in which a 

competition for program funds is held. 

In addition, in any year in which a Race 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22455 

to the Top—District competition is held, 

we may include priorities from the 

notice of final supplemental priorities 

and definitions for discretionary grant 

programs, published in the Federal 

Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 

78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 

(76 DR 276637). 

Proposed Priority 1: Personalized 

Learning Environments. To meet this 

priority, an applicant must coherently 

and comprehensively address how it 

will build on the core educational 

assurance areas (as defined in this 

notice) to create learning environments 

that are designed to significantly 

improve learning and teaching through 

the personalization of strategies, tools, 

and supports for students and educators 

that are aligned with college- and 

career-ready standards (as defined in 

this notice) or college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice); accelerate student 

achievement and deepen student 

learning by meeting the academic needs 

of each student; increase the 

effectiveness of educators; expand 

student access to the most effective 

educators; decrease achievement gaps 

across student groups; and increase the 

rates at which students graduate from 

high school prepared for college and 

careers. 

Proposed Priority 2: Non-Rural LEAs 

in Race to the Top States. To meet this 

priority, an applicant must be an LEA or 

a consortium of LEAs in which more 

than 50 percent of participating students 

(as defined in this notice) are in nonrural LEAs in States that received 

awards under the Race to the Top Phase 

1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. 

Proposed Priority 3: Rural LEAs in 

Race to the Top States. To meet this 

priority, an applicant must be an LEA or 

a consortium of LEAs in which more 

than 50 percent of participating students 

(as defined in this notice) are in rural 

LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States 

that received awards under the Race to 

the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 

competition. 

Proposed Priority 4: Non-Rural LEAs 

in non-Race to the Top States. To meet 

this priority, an applicant must be an 

LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which 

more than 50 percent of participating 

students (as defined in this notice) are 

in non-rural LEAs in States that did not 

receive awards under the Race to the 

Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 

competition. 

Proposed Priority 5: Rural LEAs in 

non-Race to the Top States. To meet this 

priority, an applicant must be an LEA or 

a consortium of LEAs in which more 

than 50 percent of participating students 

(as defined in this notice) are in rural 

LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States 

that did not receive awards under the 

Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or 

Phase 3 competition. 

Proposed Priority 6: Results, Resource 

Alignment, and Integrated Services. To 

meet this priority, an applicant must 

demonstrate the extent to which the 

applicant proposes to integrate public or 

private resources in a partnership 

designed to augment the schools’ 

resources by providing additional 

student and family supports to schools 

that address the social, emotional, or 

behavioral needs of the participating 

students (as defined in this notice), 

giving highest priority to students in 

participating schools with high-need 

students (as defined in this notice). To 

meet this priority, an applicant’s 

proposal does not need to be 

comprehensive and may provide 

student and family supports that focus 

on a subset of these needs. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must— 

(1) Provide a description of the 

coherent and sustainable partnership 

that it has formed with public or private 

organizations, such as public health, 

before-school, after-school, and social 

service providers; integrated student 

service providers; businesses, 

philanthropies, civic groups, and other 

community-based organizations; early 

learning programs; and postsecondary 

institutions to support the plan 

described in Priority 1; 

(2) Identify not more than 10 

population-level desired results for 

students in the LEA or consortium of 

LEAs that align with and support the 

applicant’s broader Race to the Top— 

District proposal. These results must 

include both (a) educational results or 

other education outcomes (e.g., children 

enter kindergarten prepared to succeed 

in school, children exit third grade 

reading at grade level, and students 

graduate from high school college- and 

career-ready) and (b) family and 

community supports (as defined in this 

notice) results; 

(3) Describe how the partnership 

would— 

(a) Track the selected indicators that 

measure each result at the aggregate 

level for all children within the LEA or 

consortium and at the student level for 

the participating students (as defined in 

this notice); 

(b) Use the data to target its resources 

in order to improve results for 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice), with special emphasis on 

students facing significant challenges, 

such as students with disabilities, 

English learners, and students affected 

by poverty (including highly mobile 

students), family instability, or other 

child welfare issues; 

(c) Develop a strategy to scale the 

model beyond the participating students 

(as defined in this notice) to at least 

other high-need students (as defined in 

this notice) and communities in the LEA 

or consortium over time; and 

(d) Improve results over time; 

(4) Describe how the partnership 

would, within participating schools (as 

defined in this notice), integrate 

education and other services (e.g., 

services that address social-emotional, 

and behavioral needs, acculturation for 

immigrants and refugees) for 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice); 

(5) Describe how the partnership and 

LEA or consortium would build the 

capacity of staff in participating schools 

(as defined in this notice) by providing 

them with tools and supports to— 

(a) Assess the needs and assets of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) that are aligned with the 

partnership’s goals for improving the 

education and family and community 

supports (as defined in this notice) 

identified by the partnership; 

(b) Identify and inventory the needs 

and assets of the school and community 

that are aligned with those goals for 

improving the education and family and 

community supports (as defined in this 

notice) identified by the applicant; 

(c) Create a decision-making process 

and infrastructure to select, implement, 

and evaluate supports that address the 

individual needs of participating 

students (as defined in this notice) and 

support improved results; 

(d) Engage parents and families of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) in both decision-making about 

solutions to improve results over time 

and in addressing student, family, and 

school needs; and 

(e) Routinely assess the applicant’s 

progress in implementing its plan to 

maximize impact and resolve challenges 

and problems; and 

(6) Identify its annual ambitious yet 

achievable performance measures for 

the proposed population-level and 

describe desired results for students. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22456 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements 

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition 

(a) In eligibility requirement (1)(a), we 

propose adding ‘‘individual’’ and ‘‘one 

of’’ to the requirement to help further 

describe the entities that are eligible to 

apply for grants under this program. 

This does not change the meaning, but 

helps clarify that every LEA, whether 

applying individually or as part of a 

consortium, must be from one of the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

—New: ‘‘An applicant must be an 

individual LEA (as defined in this 

notice) or a consortium of individual 

LEAs from one of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.’’ 

—Original: ‘‘An applicant must be an 

individual LEA (as defined in this 

notice) or a consortium of LEAs from 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

(b) In eligibility requirement (1)(a)(iii), 

we propose adding that ‘‘Successful 

applicants (i.e., grantees) from past Race 

to the Top—District competitions may 

not apply for additional funding.’’ This 

provides an opportunity for a greater 

number of LEAs nationwide to receive 

funding under the program. 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements that an LEA or consortium 

of LEAs must meet in order to be 

eligible to receive funds under this 

competition. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

(1) Eligible applicants: To be eligible 

for a grant under this competition: 

(a) An applicant must be an 

individual LEA (as defined in this 

notice) or a consortium of individual 

LEAs from one of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

(i) LEAs may apply for all or a portion 

of their schools, for specific grades, or 

for subject-area bands (e.g., lowestperforming schools, secondary schools, 

schools connected by a feeder pattern, 

middle school math, or preschool 

through third grade). 

(ii) Consortia may include LEAs from 

multiple States. 

(iii) Each LEA may participate in only 

one Race to the Top—District 

application. Successful applicants (i.e., 

grantees) from past Race to the Top— 

District competitions may not apply for 

additional funding. 

(b) An applicant must serve a 

minimum of 2,000 participating 

students (as defined in this notice) or 

may serve fewer than 2,000 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) provided those students are 

served by a consortium of at least 10 

LEAs and at least 75 percent of the 

students served by each LEA are 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice). An applicant must base its 

requested award amount on the number 

of participating students it proposes to 

serve at the time of application or 

within the first 100 days of the grant 

award. 

(c) At least 40 percent of participating 

students (as defined in this notice) 

across all participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) must be students 

from low-income families, based on 

eligibility for free or reduced-price 

lunch subsidies under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, or 

other poverty measures that LEAs use to 

make awards under section 1113(a) of 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). If an applicant has not 

identified all participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) at the time of 

application, it must provide an 

assurance that within 100 days of the 

grant award it will meet this 

requirement. 

(d) An applicant must demonstrate its 

commitment to the core educational 

assurance areas (as defined in this 

notice), including, for each LEA 

included in an application, an assurance 

signed by the LEA’s superintendent or 

CEO that— 

(i) The LEA, at a minimum, will 

implement no later than the 2014–2015 

school year— 

(A) A teacher evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); 

(B) A principal evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(C) A superintendent evaluation (as 

defined in this notice); 

(ii) The LEA is committed to 

preparing all students for college or 

career, as demonstrated by— 

(A) Being located in a State that has 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice); or 

(B) Measuring all student progress 

and performance against college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); 

(iii) The LEA has a robust data system 

that has, at a minimum— 

(A) An individual teacher identifier 

with a teacher-student match; and 

(B) The capability to provide timely 

data back to educators and their 

supervisors on student growth (as 

defined in this notice); 

(iv) The LEA has the capability to 

receive or match student-level 

preschool-through-12th grade and 

higher education data; and 

(v) The LEA ensures that any 

disclosure of or access to personally 

identifiable information in students’ 

education records complies with the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act (FERPA). 

(e) Required signatures for the LEA or 

lead LEA in a consortium are those of 

the superintendent or CEO, local school 

board president, and local teacher union 

or association president (where 

applicable). 

Proposed Application Requirements 

Changes from the FY 2012 

competition: No changes proposed. 

Proposed Application Requirements: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

application requirements for the 

application an LEA or consortium of 

LEAs would submit to the Department 

for funding under this competition. We 

may apply these requirements in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

(1) State comment period. Each LEA 

included in an application must provide 

its State at least 10 business days to 

comment on the LEA’s application and 

submit as part of its application 

package— 

(a) The State’s comments or, if the 

State declined to comment, evidence 

that the LEA offered the State 10 

business days to comment; and 

(b) The LEA’s response to the State’s 

comments (optional). 

(2) Mayor (or city or town 

administrator) comment period. Each 

LEA included in an application must 

provide its mayor or other comparable 

official at least 10 business days to 

comment on the LEA’s application and 

submit as part of its application 

package— 

(a) The mayor or city or town 

administrator’s comments or, if that 

individual declines to comment, 

evidence that the LEA offered such 

official 10 business days to comment; 

and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22457 

(b) The LEA’s response to the mayor 

or city or town administrator comments 

(optional). 

(3) Consortium. For LEAs applying as 

a consortium, the application must— 

(a) Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, whether— 

(i) One member of the consortium is 

applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium; or 

(ii) The consortium has established 

itself as a separate, eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf; 

(b) Be signed by— 

(i) If one member of the consortium is 

applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium, the superintendent or chief 

executive officer (CEO), local school 

board president, and local teacher union 

or association president (where 

applicable) of that LEA; or 

(ii) If the consortium has established 

itself as a separate eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf, a legal representative of the 

consortium; and 

(c) Include, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, for each LEA in the consortium, 

copies of all memoranda of 

understanding or other binding 

agreements related to the consortium. 

These binding agreements must— 

(i) Detail the activities that each 

member of the consortium plans to 

perform; 

(ii) Describe the consortium 

governance structure (as defined in this 

notice); 

(iii) Bind each member of the 

consortium to every statement and 

assurance made in the application; and 

(iv) Include an assurance signed by 

the LEA’s superintendent or CEO that— 

(A) The LEA, at a minimum, will 

implement no later than the 2014–2015 

school year— 

(1) A teacher evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); 

(2) A principal evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(3) A superintendent evaluation (as 

defined in this notice); 

(B) The LEA is committed to 

preparing students for college or career, 

as demonstrated by— 

(1) Being located in a State that has 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice); or 

(2) Measuring all student progress and 

performance against college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice); 

(C) The LEA has a robust data system 

that has, at a minimum— 

(1) An individual teacher identifier 

with a teacher-student match; and 

(2) The capability to provide timely 

data back to educators and their 

supervisors on student growth (as 

defined in this notice); 

(D) The LEA has the capability to 

receive or match student-level preschool 

through 12th grade and higher 

education data; and 

(E) The LEA ensures that any 

disclosure of or access to personally 

identifiable information in students’ 

education records complies with the 

FERPA; and 

(v) Be signed by the superintendent or 

CEO, local school board president, and 

local teacher union or association 

president (where applicable). 

Proposed Program Requirements 

Changes from the FY 2012 

competition: 

(a) In program requirement (1), we 

propose decreasing the maximum range 

from 25,001+ participating students 

with a $30–$40 million award range to 

20,001+ participating students with a 

$25–$30 million award range, and 

making the next highest range 10,001– 

20,000 participating students with a 

$20–$25 million award range. We also 

propose reducing the minimum award 

from $5 million to $4 million. We 

believe these changes would increase 

the number of grants awarded under a 

competition, while still awarding grants 

of sufficient size to support bold 

improvements in learning and teaching. 

Proposed Program Requirements: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for LEAs receiving funds 

under this competition. We may apply 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

(1) An applicant’s budget request for 

all years of its project must fall within 

the applicable budget range as follows: 

Number of participating 

students Award range 

2,000–5,000 or Fewer than 

2,000, provided those 

students are served by a 

consortium of at least 10 

LEAs and at least 75 

percent of the students 

served by each LEA are 

participating students (as 

defined in this notice).

$4–10 million. 

5,001–10,000 ..................... $10–20 million. 

10,001–20,000 ................... $20–25 million. 

20,001+ .............................. $25–30 million. 

The Department will not consider an 

application that requests a budget 

outside the applicable range of awards. 

(2) A grantee must work with the 

Department and with a national 

evaluator or another entity designated 

by the Department to ensure that data 

collection and program design are 

consistent with plans to conduct a 

rigorous national evaluation of the 

program and of specific solutions and 

strategies pursued by individual 

grantees. This commitment must 

include, but need not be limited to— 

(i) Consistent with 34 CFR 80.36 and 

State and local procurement procedures, 

grantees must include in contracts with 

external vendors provisions that allow 

contractors to provide implementation 

data to the LEA, the Department, the 

national evaluator, or other appropriate 

entities in ways consistent with all 

privacy laws and regulations. 

(ii) Developing, in consultation with 

the national evaluator, a plan for 

identifying and collecting reliable and 

valid baseline data for program 

participants. 

(3) LEAs must share metadata about 

content alignment with college- and 

career-ready standards (as defined in 

this notice) and use through openstandard registries. 

(4) LEAs in which minority students 

or students with disabilities are 

disproportionately subject to discipline 

(as defined in this notice) and expulsion 

(according to data submitted through 

the Department’s Civil Rights Data 

Collection, which is available at http:// 

ocrdata.ed.gov/) must conduct a district 

assessment of the root causes of the 

disproportionate discipline and 

expulsions. These LEAs must also 

develop a detailed plan over the grant 

period to address these root causes and 

to reduce disproportionate discipline (as 

defined in this notice) and expulsions. 

(5) Each grantee must make all project 

implementation and student data 

available to the Department and its 

authorized representatives in 

compliance with FERPA, as applicable. 

(6) Grantees must ensure that requests 

for information (RFIs) and requests for 

proposal (RFPs) developed as part of 

this grant are made public, and are 

consistent with the requirements of 

State and local law. 

(7) Within 100 days of award, each 

grantee must submit to the 

Department— 

(i) A scope of work that is consistent 

with its grant application and includes 

specific goals, activities, deliverables, 

timelines, budgets, key personnel, and 

annual targets for key performance 

measures; and 

(ii) An individual school 

implementation plan for participating 

schools (as defined in this notice). 

(8) Within 100 days of award, each 

grantee must demonstrate that at least 

40 percent of participating students (as 

defined in this notice) in participating 

schools (as defined in this notice) are 

from low-income families, based on 

eligibility for free or reduced-price 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22458 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

lunch subsidies under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, or 

other poverty measures that LEAs use to 

make awards under section 1113(a) of 

the ESEA. 

Proposed Definitions 

Changes from the FY 2012 

competition: No changes proposed. 

Proposed definitions: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for terms not defined in the 

ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA). 

We may apply these definitions in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Achievement gap means the 

difference in the performance between 

each subgroup (as defined in this notice) 

within a participating LEA or school 

and the statewide average performance 

of the LEA’s or State’s highest-achieving 

subgroups in reading or language arts 

and in mathematics as measured by the 

assessments required under the ESEA, 

as amended. 

College- and career-ready graduation 

requirements means minimum high 

school graduation expectations (e.g., 

completion of a minimum course of 

study, content mastery, proficiency on 

college- and career-ready assessments) 

that are aligned with a rigorous, robust, 

and well-rounded curriculum and that 

cover a wide range of academic and 

technical knowledge and skills to 

ensure that by the time students 

graduate high school, they satisfy 

requirements for admission into creditbearing courses commonly required by 

the State’s public four-year degreegranting institutions. 

College- and career-ready standards 

means content standards for 

kindergarten through 12th grade that 

build towards college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice). A State’s college- and 

career-ready standards must be either 

(1) standards that are common to a 

significant number of States; or (2) 

standards that are approved by a State 

network of institutions of higher 

education, which must certify that 

students who meet the standards will 

not need remedial course work at the 

postsecondary level. 

College enrollment means the 

enrollment of students who graduate 

from high school consistent with 34 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) and who enroll in a 

public institution of higher education in 

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

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended, 20 U.S.C. 1001) within 16 

months of graduation. 

Consortium governance structure 

means the consortium’s structure for 

carrying out its operations, including— 

(1) The organizational structure of the 

consortium and the differentiated roles 

that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead 

LEA, member LEA); 

(2) For each differentiated role, the 

associated rights and responsibilities, 

including rights and responsibilities for 

adopting and implementing the 

consortium’s proposal for a grant; 

(3) The consortium’s method and 

process (e.g., consensus, majority) for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational); 

(4) The protocols by which the 

consortium will operate, including the 

protocols for member LEAs to change 

roles or leave the consortium; 

(5) The consortium’s procedures for 

managing funds received under this 

grant; 

(6) The terms and conditions of the 

memorandum of understanding or other 

binding agreement executed by each 

member LEA; and 

(7) The consortium’s procurement 

process, and evidence of each member 

LEA’s commitment to that process. 

Core educational assurance areas 

means the four key areas originally 

identified in the ARRA to support 

comprehensive education reform: (1) 

Adopting standards and assessments 

that prepare students to succeed in 

college and the workplace and to 

compete in the global economy; (2) 

building data systems that measure 

student growth and success, and inform 

teachers and principals with data about 

how they can improve instruction; (3) 

recruiting, developing, rewarding, and 

retaining effective teachers and 

principals, especially where they are 

needed most; and (4) turning around 

lowest-achieving schools. 

Digital learning content means 

learning materials and resources that 

can be displayed on an electronic device 

and shared electronically with other 

users. Digital learning content includes 

both open source and commercial 

content. In order to comply with the 

requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, any digital learning content 

used by grantees must be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, including 

individuals who use screen readers. For 

additional information regarding the 

application of these laws to technology, 

please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/ 

colleague-201105-ese.pdf and 

www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq201105.pdf. 

Discipline means any disciplinary 

measure collected by the 2009–2010 or 

2011–2012 Civil Rights Data Collection 

(see http://ocrdata.ed.gov). 

Educators means all education 

professionals and education 

paraprofessionals working in 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice), including principals or other 

heads of a school, teachers, other 

professional instructional staff (e.g., staff 

involved in curriculum development, 

staff development, bilingual/English as 

a Second Language (ESL) specialists, or 

instructional staff who operate library, 

media, and computer centers), pupil 

support services staff (e.g., guidance 

counselors, nurses, speech pathologists), 

other administrators (e.g., assistant 

principals, discipline specialists), and 

education paraprofessionals (e.g., 

assistant teachers, bilingual/ESL 

instructional aides). 

Effective principal means a principal 

whose students, overall and for each 

subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., 

at least one grade level in an academic 

year) of student growth (as defined in 

this notice) as defined in the LEA’s 

principal evaluation system (as defined 

in this notice). 

Effective teacher means a teacher 

whose students achieve acceptable rates 

(e.g., at least one grade level in an 

academic year) of student growth (as 

defined in this notice) as defined in the 

LEA’s teacher evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice). 

Family and community supports 

means— 

(1) Child and youth health programs, 

such as physical, mental, behavioral, 

and emotional health programs (e.g., 

home visiting programs; Head Start; 

Early Head Start; programs to improve 

nutrition and fitness, reduce childhood 

obesity, and create healthier 

communities); 

(2) Safety programs, such as programs 

in school and out of school to prevent, 

control, and reduce crime, violence, 

drug and alcohol use and gang activity; 

programs that address classroom and 

school-wide behavior and conduct; 

programs to prevent child abuse and 

neglect; programs to prevent truancy 

and reduce and prevent bullying and 

harassment; and programs to improve 

the physical and emotional security of 

the school setting as perceived, 

experienced, and created by students, 

staff, and families; 

(3) Community stability programs, 

such as programs that: (a) Provide adult 

education and employment 

opportunities and training to improve 

educational levels, job skills, and 

readiness in order to decrease 

unemployment, with a goal of 

increasing family stability; (b) improve 

families’ awareness of, access to, and 

use of a range of social services, if 

possible at a single location; (c) provide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22459 

1The Department considers schools that are 

identified as Tier I or Tier II schools under the 

School Improvement Grants Program (see 75 FR 

66363) as part of a State’s approved FY 2009 or FY 

2010 applications to be persistently lowestachieving schools. A list of these Tier I and Tier II 

schools can be found on the Department’s Web site 

at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html. 

unbiased, outcome-focused, and 

comprehensive financial education, 

inside and outside the classroom and at 

every life stage; (d) increase access to 

traditional financial institutions (e.g., 

banks and credit unions) rather than 

alternative financial institutions (e.g., 

check cashers and payday lenders); (e) 

help families increase their financial 

literacy, financial assets, and savings; (f) 

help families access transportation to 

education and employment 

opportunities; and (g) provide supports 

and services to students who are 

homeless, in foster care, migrant, or 

highly mobile; and 

(4) Family and community 

engagement programs that are systemic, 

integrated, sustainable, and continue 

through a student’s transition from K–12 

schooling to college and career. These 

programs may include family literacy 

programs and programs that provide 

adult education and training and 

opportunities for family members and 

other members of the community to 

support student learning and establish 

high expectations for student 

educational achievement; mentorship 

programs that create positive 

relationships between children and 

adults; programs that provide for the use 

of such community resources as 

libraries, museums, television and radio 

stations, and local businesses to support 

improved student educational 

outcomes; programs that support the 

engagement of families in early learning 

programs and services; programs that 

provide guidance on how to navigate 

through a complex school system and 

how to advocate for more and improved 

learning opportunities; and programs 

that promote collaboration with 

educators and community organizations 

to improve opportunities for healthy 

development and learning. 

Four intervention models means the 

turnaround model, restart model, school 

closure, and transformational model as 

defined by the final requirements for the 

School Improvement Grant (SIG) 

program, published in the Federal 

Register on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 

66363). 

Graduation rate means the four-year 

or extended-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1). 

High-need students means students at 

risk of educational failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools (as defined in this notice), who 

are far below grade level, who have left 

school before receiving a regular high 

school diploma, who are at risk of not 

graduating with a diploma on time, who 

are homeless, who are in foster care, 

who have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are English learners. 

High-minority school is defined by the 

LEA in a manner consistent with its 

State’s Teacher Equity Plan, as required 

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

The LEA must provide, in its Race to the 

Top—District application, the definition 

used. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup, achieve high rates 

(e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an 

academic year) of student growth (as 

defined in this notice) as defined under 

the LEA’s principal evaluation system 

(as defined in this notice). 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels 

in an academic year) of student growth 

(as defined in this notice) as defined 

under the LEA’s teacher evaluation 

system (as defined in this notice). 

Interoperable data system means a 

system that uses a common, established 

structure such that data can easily flow 

from one system to another and in 

which data are in a non-proprietary, 

open format. 

Local educational agency is an entity 

as defined in section 9101(26) of the 

ESEA, except that an entity described 

under section 9101(26)(D) must be 

recognized under applicable State law 

as a local educational agency. 

Low-performing school means a 

school that is in the bottom 10 percent 

of performance in the State, or that has 

significant achievement gaps, based on 

student academic performance in 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

on the assessments required under the 

ESEA, or that has a graduation rate (as 

defined in this notice) below 60 percent. 

Metadata means information about 

digital learning content such as the 

grade or age for which it is intended, the 

topic or standard to which it is aligned, 

or the type of resource it is (e.g., video, 

image). 

On-track indicator means a measure, 

available at a time sufficiently early to 

allow for intervention, of a single 

student characteristic (e.g., number of 

days absent, number of discipline 

referrals, number of credits earned), or 

a composite of multiple characteristics, 

that is both predictive of student 

success (e.g., students demonstrating the 

measure graduate at an 80 percent rate) 

and comprehensive of students who 

succeed (e.g., of all graduates, 90 

percent demonstrated the indicator). 

Using multiple indicators that are 

collectively comprehensive but vary by 

student characteristics may be an 

appropriate alternative to a single 

indicator that applies to all students. 

Open data format means data that are 

available in a non-proprietary, machinereadable format (e.g., Extensible Markup 

Language (XML) and JavaScript Object 

Notation (JSON)) such that they can be 

understood by a computer. Digital 

formats that require extraction, data 

translation such as optical character 

recognition, or other manipulation in 

order to be used in electronic systems 

are not machine-readable formats. 

Open-standard registry means a 

digital platform, such as the Learning 

Registry, that facilitates the exchange of 

information about digital learning 

content (as defined in this notice), 

including (1) alignment of content with 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) and (2) usage 

information about learning content used 

by educators (as defined in this notice). 

This digital platform must have the 

capability to share content information 

with other LEAs and with State 

educational agencies. 

Participating school means a school 

that is identified by the applicant and 

chooses to work with the applicant to 

implement the plan under Priority 1, 

either in one or more specific grade 

spans or subject areas or throughout the 

entire school and affecting a significant 

number of its students. 

Participating student means a student 

enrolled in a participating school (as 

defined in this notice) and who is 

directly served by an applicant’s plan 

under Priority 1. 

Persistently lowest-achieving school 

means, as determined by the State, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

SIG program authorized by section 

1003(g) of the ESEA,1 (1) any Title I 

school in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that (a) is among 

the lowest-achieving five percent of 

Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring or the 

lowest-achieving five Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or (b) is a 

high school that has had a graduation 

rate (as defined in this notice) that is 

less than 60 percent over a number of 

years; and (2) any secondary school that 

is eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I funds that (a) is among the lowestachieving five percent of secondary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

schools or the lowest-achieving five 

secondary schools in the State that are 

eligible for, but do not receive, Title I 

funds, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or (b) is a high school that has 

had a graduation rate (as defined in this 

notice) that is less than 60 percent over 

a number of years. 

To identify the lowest-achieving 

schools, a State must take into account 

both (1) the academic achievement of 

the ‘‘all students’’ group in a school in 

terms of proficiency on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading or language arts 

and in mathematics combined; and (2) 

the school’s lack of progress on those 

assessments over a number of years in 

the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Principal evaluation system means a 

system that: (1) Is used for continual 

improvement of instructional 

leadership; (2) meaningfully 

differentiates performance using at least 

three performance levels; (3) uses 

multiple valid measures in determining 

performance levels, including, as a 

significant factor, data on student 

growth (as defined in this notice) for all 

students (including English learners and 

students with disabilities), as well as 

other measures of professional practice 

(which may be gathered through 

multiple formats and sources, such as 

observations based on rigorous 

leadership performance standards, 

teacher evaluation data, and student and 

parent surveys); (4) evaluates principals 

on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, 

timely, and useful feedback, including 

feedback that identifies and guides 

professional development needs; and (6) 

is used to inform personnel decisions. 

Rural local educational agency means 

an LEA, at the time of the application, 

that is eligible under the Small Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program or 

the Rural and Low-Income School 

(RLIS) program authorized under Title 

VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible 

applicants may determine whether a 

particular LEA is eligible for these 

programs by referring to information on 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/ 

eligible12/index.html. 

School leadership team means a team 

that leads the implementation of 

improvement and other initiatives at the 

school and is composed of the principal 

or other head of a school, teachers, and 

other educators (as defined in this 

notice), and, as applicable, other school 

employees, parents, students, and other 

community members. In cases where 

statute or local policy, including 

collective bargaining agreements, 

establishes a school leadership team, 

that body shall serve as the school 

leadership team for the purpose of this 

program. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time, defined as— 

(1) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under ESEA 

section 1111(b)(3): (a) a student’s score 

on such assessments; and (b) may 

include other measures of student 

learning, such as those described in (2) 

below, provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools within an 

LEA. 

(2) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative 

measures of student learning and 

performance, such as student results on 

pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and 

objective performance-based 

assessments; performance against 

student learning objectives; student 

performance on English language 

proficiency assessments; and other 

measures of student achievement that 

are rigorous and comparable across 

schools within an LEA. 

Student-level data means 

demographic, performance, and other 

information that pertains to a single 

student. 

Student performance data means 

information about the academic 

progress of a single student, such as 

formative and summative assessment 

data, information on completion of 

coursework, instructor observations, 

information about student engagement 

and time on task, and similar 

information. 

Subgroup means each category of 

students identified under section 

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

as any combined subgroup used in the 

State accountability system and 

approved by the Department in a State’s 

request for ESEA flexibility. 

Superintendent evaluation means a 

rigorous, transparent, and fair annual 

evaluation of an LEA superintendent 

that provides an assessment of 

performance and encourages 

professional growth. This evaluation 

must reflect: (1) the feedback of many 

stakeholders, including but not limited 

to educators, principals, and parents; 

and (2) student outcomes. 

Teacher evaluation system means a 

system that: (1) Is used for continual 

improvement of instruction; (2) 

meaningfully differentiates performance 

using at least three performance levels; 

(3) uses multiple valid measures in 

determining performance levels, 

including, as a significant factor, data on 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) for all students (including 

English learners and students with 

disabilities), as well as other measures 

of professional practice (which may be 

gathered through multiple formats and 

sources, such as observations based on 

rigorous teacher performance standards, 

teacher portfolios, and student and 

parent surveys); (4) evaluates teachers 

on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, 

timely, and useful feedback, including 

feedback that identifies and guides 

professional development needs; and (6) 

is used to inform personnel decisions. 

Teacher of record means an 

individual (or individuals in a coteaching assignment) who has been 

assigned the lead responsibility for a 

student’s learning in a subject or course. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Changes from the FY 2012 

competition: 

(a) For selection criteria that include 

plans, peer reviewers are asked to assess 

the quality of the plans using a 

consistent set of high-quality plan 

elements. To clarify that these elements 

apply across all selection criteria that 

include plans, we propose deleting extra 

references to ‘‘plans’’ or ‘‘strategies’’ in 

the criteria language. These include: 

(i) Selection criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2): 

In the last sentence of the stem to 

selection criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2), we 

propose changing ‘‘The quality of the 

plan will be assessed based on’’ to ‘‘This 

includes’’. 

—New: ‘‘This includes the extent to 

which the applicant proposes an 

approach that includes the following:’’ 

—Original: ‘‘The quality of the plan 

will be assessed based on the extent to 

which the applicant proposes an 

approach that includes the following:’’ 

(ii) Selection criterion (C)(1)(b): In 

(C)(1)(b), we propose deleting ‘‘there is 

a strategy to ensure that’’. The proposed 

change helps clarify the use of the highquality plan elements, as well as makes 

the stem for (C)(1)(b) consistent with the 

stem for (C)(1)(a). 

—New: ‘‘With the support of parents 

and educators, each student has access 

to—’’ 

—Original: ‘‘With the support of 

parents and educators, there is a strategy 

to ensure that each student has access 

to—’’ 

(iii) Selection criteria (D)(1) and 

(D)(2): Similar to the clarification 

proposed for the stem to selection 

criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2), we propose 

changing ‘‘The quality of the plan will 

be assessed based on’’ to ‘‘This 

includes’’. 

—New: ‘‘This includes the extent to 

which—’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22461 

—Original: ‘‘The quality of the plan 

will be determined based on the extent 

to which—’’ 

(iv) Selection criteria (E)(1), (E)(2), 

and (E)(4): We propose changing 

‘‘strategy’’ or ‘‘plan’’ to ‘‘high-quality 

plan’’. 

(b) Selection criterion (E)(3): In 

selection criterion (E)(3), we propose 

changing ‘‘must’’ to ‘‘should’’, to clarify 

that the number of performance 

measures should be approximately 12 to 

14, and may vary based on the 

applicant’s plan and the number of 

applicable populations served. 

—New: ‘‘The applicant should have a 

total of approximately 12 to 14 

performance measures.’’ 

—Original: ‘‘The applicant must have 

a total of approximately 12 to 14 

performance measures.’’ 

(c) We propose removing Selection 

Criterion G: Optional Budget 

Supplement. As noted elsewhere in this 

document, we propose removing the 

opportunity to apply for an optional 

budget supplement in order to 

maximize the number of grantees that 

could receive funding under this 

program and decrease the complexity of 

having separate plans and budgets for a 

single selection criterion that by 

definition is not intended to impact an 

applicant’s ability to meet Priority 1. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

The Secretary proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this competition. We 

may apply one or more of these criteria 

or sub-criteria, any of the selection 

criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, criteria based 

on statutory requirements for the 

program in accordance with 34 CFR 

75.209, or any combination of these in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting applications 

and the application package, the 

Department will announce the selection 

criteria to be applied and the maximum 

possible points assigned to each 

criterion. 

A. Vision 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

has set forth a comprehensive and 

coherent reform vision that builds on its 

work in four core educational assurance 

areas (as defined in this notice) and 

articulates a clear and credible approach 

to the goals of accelerating student 

achievement, deepening student 

learning, and increasing equity through 

personalized student support grounded 

in common and individual tasks that are 

based on student academic interests. 

(2) The extent to which the 

applicant’s approach to implementing 

its reform proposal (e.g., schools, grade 

bands, or subject areas) will support 

high-quality LEA-level and school-level 

implementation of that proposal, 

including— 

(a) A description of the process that 

the applicant used or will use to select 

schools to participate. The process must 

ensure that the participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) collectively meet 

the competition’s eligibility 

requirements; 

(b) A list of the schools that will 

participate in grant activities (as 

available); and 

(c) The total number of participating 

students (as defined in this notice), 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) from low-income families, 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) who are high-need students (as 

defined in this notice), and participating 

educators (as defined in this notice). If 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice) have yet to be selected, the 

applicant may provide approximate 

numbers. 

(3) The extent to which the 

application includes a high-quality plan 

describing how the reform proposal will 

be scaled up and translated into 

meaningful reform to support districtwide change beyond the participating 

schools (as defined in this notice), and 

will help the applicant reach its 

outcome goals (e.g., the applicant’s logic 

model or theory of change of how its 

plan will improve student learning 

outcomes for all students who would be 

served by the applicant). 

(4) The extent to which the 

applicant’s vision is likely to result in 

improved student learning and 

performance and increased equity as 

demonstrated by ambitious yet 

achievable annual goals that are equal to 

or exceed State ESEA targets for the 

LEA(s), overall and by student subgroup 

(as defined in this notice), for each 

participating LEA in the following areas: 

(a) Performance on summative 

assessments (proficiency status and 

growth). 

(b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as 

defined in this notice). 

(c) Graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice). 

(d) College enrollment (as defined in 

this notice) rates. 

Optional: The extent to which the 

applicant’s vision is likely to result in 

improved student learning and 

performance and increased equity as 

demonstrated by ambitious yet 

achievable annual goals for each 

participating LEA in the following area: 

(e) Postsecondary degree attainment. 

B. Prior Record of Success and 

Conditions for Reform 

The extent to which each LEA has 

demonstrated evidence of— 

(1) A clear record of success in the 

past four years in advancing student 

learning and achievement and 

increasing equity in learning and 

teaching, including a description, charts 

or graphs, raw student data, and other 

evidence that demonstrates the 

applicant’s ability to— 

(a) Improve student learning 

outcomes and close achievement gaps 

(as defined in this notice), including by 

raising student achievement, high 

school graduation rates (as defined in 

this notice), and college enrollment (as 

defined in this notice) rates; 

(b) Achieve ambitious and significant 

reforms in its persistently lowestachieving schools (as defined in this 

notice) or in its low-performing schools 

(as defined in this notice); and 

(c) Make student performance data (as 

defined in this notice) available to 

students, educators (as defined in this 

notice), and parents in ways that inform 

and improve participation, instruction, 

and services. 

(2) A high level of transparency in 

LEA processes, practices, and 

investments, including by making 

public, by school, actual school-level 

expenditures for regular K–12 

instruction, instructional support, pupil 

support, and school administration. At 

a minimum, this information must 

include a description of the extent to 

which the applicant already makes 

available the following four categories of 

school-level expenditures from State 

and local funds: 

(a) Actual personnel salaries at the 

school level for all school-level 

instructional and support staff, based on 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s classification 

used in the F–33 survey of local 

government finances (information on 

the survey can be found at http:// 

nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp); 

(b) Actual personnel salaries at the 

school level for instructional staff only; 

(c) Actual personnel salaries at the 

school level for teachers only; and 

(d) Actual non-personnel 

expenditures at the school level (if 

available). 

(3) Successful conditions and 

sufficient autonomy under State legal, 

statutory, and regulatory requirements 

to implement the personalized learning 

environments described in the 

applicant’s proposal; 

(4) Meaningful stakeholder 

engagement in the development of the 

proposal and meaningful stakeholder 

support for the proposal, including— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22462 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(a) A description of how students, 

families, teachers, and principals in 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice) were engaged in the 

development of the proposal and, as 

appropriate, how the proposal was 

revised based on their engagement and 

feedback, including— 

(i) For LEAs with collective 

bargaining representation, evidence of 

direct engagement and support for the 

proposals from teachers in participating 

schools (as defined in this notice); or 

(ii) For LEAs without collective 

bargaining representation, at a 

minimum, evidence that at least 70 

percent of teachers from participating 

schools (as defined in this notice) 

support the proposal; and 

(b) Letters of support from such key 

stakeholders as parents and parent 

organizations, student organizations, 

early learning programs, tribes, the 

business community, civil rights 

organizations, advocacy groups, local 

civic and community-based 

organizations, and institutions of higher 

education; and 

(5) A high-quality plan for an analysis 

of the applicant’s current status in 

implementing personalized learning 

environments and the logic behind the 

reform proposal contained within the 

applicant’s proposal, including 

identified needs and gaps that the plan 

will address. 

C. Preparing Students for College and 

Careers 

The extent to which the applicant has 

a high-quality plan for improving 

learning and teaching by personalizing 

the learning environment in order to 

provide all students the support to 

graduate college- and career-ready. This 

plan must include an approach to 

implementing instructional strategies 

for all participating students (as defined 

in this notice) that enable participating 

students to pursue a rigorous course of 

study aligned to college- and careerready standards (as defined in this 

notice) and college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice) and accelerate his or her 

learning through support of his or her 

needs. This includes the extent to which 

the applicant proposes an approach that 

includes the following: 

(1) Learning: An approach to learning 

that engages and empowers all learners, 

in particular high-need students, in an 

age-appropriate manner such that: 

(a) With the support of parents and 

educators, all students— 

(i) Understand that what they are 

learning is key to their success in 

accomplishing their goals; 

(ii) Identify and pursue learning and 

development goals linked to collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) or college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice), understand how 

to structure their learning to achieve 

their goals, and measure progress 

toward those goals; 

(iii) Are able to be involved in deep 

learning experiences in areas of 

academic interest; 

(iv) Have access and exposure to 

diverse cultures, contexts, and 

perspectives that motivate and deepen 

individual student learning; and 

(v) Master critical academic content 

and develop skills and traits such as 

goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, 

critical thinking, communication, 

creativity, and problem-solving; 

(b) With the support of parents and 

educators, each student has access to— 

(i) A personalized sequence of 

instructional content and skill 

development designed to enable the 

student to achieve his or her individual 

learning goals and ensure he or she can 

graduate on time and college- and 

career-ready; 

(ii) A variety of high-quality 

instructional approaches and 

environments; 

(iii) High-quality content, including 

digital learning content (as defined in 

this notice) as appropriate, aligned with 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); 

(iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, 

including, at a minimum— 

(A) Frequently updated individual 

student data that can be used to 

determine progress toward mastery of 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice), or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements; 

and 

(B) Personalized learning 

recommendations based on the 

student’s current knowledge and skills, 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice), and available 

content, instructional approaches, and 

supports; and 

(v) Accommodations and high-quality 

strategies for high-need students (as 

defined in this notice) to help ensure 

that they are on track toward meeting 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); and 

(c) Mechanisms are in place to 

provide training and support to students 

that will ensure that they understand 

how to use the tools and resources 

provided to them in order to track and 

manage their learning. 

(2) Teaching and Leading: An 

approach to teaching and leading that 

helps educators (as defined in this 

notice) to improve instruction and 

increase their capacity to support 

student progress toward meeting 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice) by enabling 

the full implementation of personalized 

learning and teaching for all students 

such that: 

(a) All participating educators (as 

defined in this notice) engage in 

training, and in professional teams or 

communities, that supports their 

individual and collective capacity to— 

(i) Support the effective 

implementation of personalized 

learning environments and strategies 

that meet each student’s academic needs 

and help ensure all students can 

graduate on time and college- and 

career-ready; 

(ii) Adapt content and instruction, 

providing opportunities for students to 

engage in common and individual tasks, 

in response to their academic needs, 

academic interests, and optimal learning 

approaches (e.g., discussion and 

collaborative work, project-based 

learning, videos, audio, manipulatives); 

(iii) Frequently measure student 

progress toward meeting college- and 

career-ready standards (as defined in 

this notice), or college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice) and use data to inform both 

the acceleration of student progress and 

the improvement of the individual and 

collective practice of educators; and 

(iv) Improve teachers’ and principals’ 

practice and effectiveness by using 

feedback provided by the LEA’s teacher 

and principal evaluation systems (as 

defined in this notice), including 

frequent feedback on individual and 

collective effectiveness, as well as by 

providing recommendations, supports 

and interventions as needed for 

improvement. 

(b) All participating educators (as 

defined in this notice) have access to, 

and know how to use, tools, data, and 

resources to accelerate student progress 

toward meeting college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice). Those resources 

must include— 

(i) Actionable information that helps 

educators (as defined in this notice) 

identify optimal learning approaches 

that respond to individual student 

academic needs and interests; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22463 

(ii) High-quality learning resources 

(e.g., instructional content and 

assessments), including digital 

resources, as appropriate, that are 

aligned with college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice) or 

college- and career-ready graduation 

requirements (as defined in this notice), 

and the tools to create and share new 

resources; and 

(iii) Processes and tools to match 

student needs (see Selection Criterion 

(C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and 

approaches (see Selection Criterion 

(C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously 

improving feedback about the 

effectiveness of the resources in meeting 

student needs. 

(c) All participating school leaders 

and school leadership teams (as defined 

in this notice) have training, policies, 

tools, data, and resources that enable 

them to structure an effective learning 

environment that meets individual 

student academic needs and accelerates 

student progress through common and 

individual tasks toward meeting collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) or college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice). The training, 

policies, tools, data, and resources must 

include: 

(i) Information, from such sources as 

the district’s teacher evaluation system 

(as defined in this notice), that helps 

school leaders and school leadership 

teams (as defined in this notice) assess, 

and take steps to improve, individual 

and collective educator effectiveness 

and school culture and climate, for the 

purpose of continuous school 

improvement; and 

(ii) Training, systems, and practices to 

continuously improve school progress 

toward the goals of increasing student 

performance and closing achievement 

gaps (as defined in this notice). 

(d) The applicant has a high-quality 

plan for increasing the number of 

students who receive instruction from 

effective and highly effective teachers 

and principals (as defined in this 

notice), including in hard-to-staff 

schools, subjects (such as mathematics 

and science), and specialty areas (such 

as special education). 

D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure 

The extent to which the applicant has 

a high-quality plan to support project 

implementation through comprehensive 

policies and infrastructure that provide 

every student, educator (as defined in 

this notice), and level of the education 

system (classroom, school, and LEA) 

with the support and resources they 

need, when and where they are needed. 

This includes the extent to which— 

(1) The applicant has practices, 

policies, and rules that facilitate 

personalized learning by— 

(a) Organizing the LEA central office, 

or the consortium governance structure 

(as defined in this notice), to provide 

support and services to all participating 

schools (as defined in this notice); 

(b) Providing school leadership teams 

in participating schools (as defined in 

this notice) with sufficient flexibility 

and autonomy over factors such as 

school schedules and calendars, school 

personnel decisions and staffing 

models, roles and responsibilities for 

educators and noneducators, and 

school-level budgets; 

(c) Giving students the opportunity to 

progress and earn credit based on 

demonstrated mastery, not the amount 

of time spent on a topic; 

(d) Giving students the opportunity to 

demonstrate mastery of standards at 

multiple times and in multiple 

comparable ways; and 

(e) Providing learning resources and 

instructional practices that are 

adaptable and fully accessible to all 

students, including students with 

disabilities and English learners; and 

(2) The LEA and school infrastructure 

supports personalized learning by— 

(a) Ensuring that all participating 

students (as defined in this notice), 

parents, educators (as defined in this 

notice), and other stakeholders (as 

appropriate and relevant to student 

learning), regardless of income, have 

access to necessary content, tools, and 

other learning resources both in and out 

of school to support the implementation 

of the applicant’s proposal; 

(b) Ensuring that students, parents, 

educators, and other stakeholders (as 

appropriate and relevant to student 

learning) have appropriate levels of 

technical support, which may be 

provided through a range of strategies 

(e.g., peer support, online support, or 

local support); 

(c) Using information technology 

systems that allow parents and students 

to export their information in an open 

data format (as defined in this notice) 

and to use the data in other electronic 

learning systems (e.g., electronic tutors, 

tools that make recommendations for 

additional learning supports, or 

software that securely stores personal 

records); and 

(d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools 

use interoperable data systems (as 

defined in this notice) (e.g., systems that 

include human resources data, student 

information data, budget data, and 

instructional improvement system data). 

E. Continuous Improvement 

Because the applicant’s high-quality 

plan represents the best thinking at a 

point in time, and may require 

adjustments and revisions during 

implementation, it is vital that the 

applicant have a clear and high-quality 

approach to continuously improve its 

plan. This will be determined by the 

extent to which the applicant has— 

(1) A high-quality plan for 

implementing a rigorous continuous 

improvement process that provides 

timely and regular feedback on progress 

toward project goals and opportunities 

for ongoing corrections and 

improvements during and after the term 

of the grant. The plan must address how 

the applicant will monitor, measure, 

and publicly share information on the 

quality of its investments funded by 

Race to the Top—District, such as 

investments in professional 

development, technology, and staff; 

(2) A high-quality plan for ongoing 

communication and engagement with 

internal and external stakeholders; and 

(3) Ambitious yet achievable 

performance measures, overall and by 

subgroup, with annual targets for 

required and applicant-proposed 

performance measures. For each 

applicant-proposed measure, the 

applicant must describe— 

(a) Its rationale for selecting that 

measure; 

(b) How the measure will provide 

rigorous, timely, and formative leading 

information tailored to its proposed 

plan and theory of action regarding the 

applicant’s implementation success or 

areas of concern; and 

(c) How it will review and improve 

the measure over time if it is insufficient 

to gauge implementation progress. 

The applicant should have a total of 

approximately 12 to 14 performance 

measures. 

The chart below outlines the required 

and applicant-proposed performance 

measures based on an applicant’s 

applicable population. 

Applicable population Performance measure 

All .................................................... (a) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose 

teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are a highly effective teacher (as defined in this 

notice) and a highly effective principal (as defined in this notice); and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22464 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Applicable population Performance measure 

(b) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose 

teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are an effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and an effective principal (as defined in this notice). 

PreK–3 ............................................ (a) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate measure of students’ academic growth (e.g., language and literacy development or cognition and general learning, including early mathematics and early 

scientific development); and 

(b) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth (e.g., physical 

well-being and motor development, or social-emotional development). 

4–8 .................................................. (a) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup, who are on track to college- and 

career-readiness based on the applicant’s on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); 

(b) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; and 

(c) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of 

successful implementation of its plan. 

9–12 ................................................ (a) The number and percentage of participating students who complete and submit the Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form; 

(b) The number and percentage of participating students, by subgroup, who are on track to college- and 

career-readiness based on the applicant’s on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); 

(c) Applicant must propose at least one measure of career-readiness in order to assess the number and 

percentage of participating students who are or are on track to being career-ready; 

(d) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; and 

(e) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of 

successful implementation of its plan. 

(4) A high-quality plan to evaluate the 

effectiveness of Race to the Top— 

District funded activities, such as 

professional development and activities 

that employ technology, and to more 

productively use time, staff, money, or 

other resources in order to improve 

results, through such strategies as 

improved use of technology, working 

with community partners, 

compensation reform, and modification 

of school schedules and structures (e.g., 

service delivery, school leadership 

teams (as defined in this notice), and 

decision-making structures). 

F. Budget and Sustainability 

The extent to which— 

(1) The applicant’s budget, including 

the budget narrative and tables— 

(a) Identifies all funds that will 

support the project (e.g., Race to the 

Top—District grant; external foundation 

support; LEA, State, and other Federal 

funds); 

(b) Is reasonable and sufficient to 

support the development and 

implementation of the applicant’s 

proposal; and 

(c) Clearly provides a thoughtful 

rationale for investments and priorities, 

including— 

(i) A description of all of the funds 

(e.g., Race to the Top—District grant; 

external foundation support; LEA, State, 

and other Federal funds) that the 

applicant will use to support the 

implementation of the proposal, 

including total revenue from these 

sources; and 

(ii) Identification of the funds that 

will be used for one-time investments 

versus those that will be used for 

ongoing operational costs that will be 

incurred during and after the grant 

period, as described in the proposed 

budget and budget narrative, with a 

focus on strategies that will ensure the 

long-term sustainability of the 

personalized learning environments; 

and 

(2) The applicant has a high-quality 

plan for sustainability of the project’s 

goals after the term of the grant. The 

plan should include support from State 

and local government leaders and 

financial support. Such a plan may 

include a budget for the three years after 

the term of the grant that includes 

budget assumptions, potential sources, 

and uses of funds. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of more than $100 million 

because we expect that more than that 

amount will be appropriated for Race to 

the Top and awarded as grants. 

Therefore, this proposed action is 

‘‘economically significant’’ and subject 

to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22465 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this proposed regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits would justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

LEAs. The Secretary also believes that 

the benefits of implementing the 

proposals contained in this notice 

would outweigh any associated costs. 

The Secretary believes that the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would result in 

selection of high-quality applications to 

implement activities that are most likely 

to support bold, locally directed 

improvements in learning and teaching 

that would directly improve student 

achievement and educator effectiveness. 

During the first year of the program, the 

Department received over 370 

applications representing more than 

1200 LEAs. We expect that the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in this notice would 

strengthen the applications for this 

program by clarifying the scope of 

activities the Secretary expects to 

support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing projects under the 

program. The pool of possible 

applicants is large and there is great 

interest in the program. Potential 

applicants need to consider carefully 

the effort that will be required to 

prepare a strong application, their 

capacity to implement projects 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. 

Program participation is voluntary. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities would be paid for with 

program funds. Thus, the costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for eligible applicants, including small 

entities. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs applying for and receiving funds 

under this program. The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on 

applicants by the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would be limited to paperwork 

burden related to preparing an 

application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would impose no 

burden on small entities in general. 

Eligible applicants would determine 

whether to apply for funds, and have 

the opportunity to weigh the 

requirements for preparing applications, 

and any associated costs, against the 

likelihood of receiving funding and the 

requirements for implementing projects 

under the program. Eligible applicants 

most likely would apply only if they 

determine that the likely benefits exceed 

the costs of preparing an application. 

The likely benefits include the potential 

receipt of a grant as well as other 

benefits that may accrue to an entity 

through its development of an 

application, such as the use of that 

application to spur educational reforms 

and improvements without additional 

Federal funding. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration Size Standards defines 

as ‘‘small entities’’ for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions (that are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts), with a population of 

less than 50,000. There are 

approximately 16,000 LEAs in the 

country that meet the definition of 

‘‘small entity.’’ However, the Secretary 

believes that only a small number of 

these entities would be interested in 

applying for funds under this program, 

thus reducing the likelihood that the 

proposals contained in this notice 

would have a significant economic 

impact on small entities. As discussed 

earlier, the number of applications 

received during the last competition 

was approximately 370. 

In addition, the Secretary believes 

that the proposed priorities, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22466 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria discussed in this notice do not 

impose any additional burden on small 

entities applying for a grant than they 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the regulatory 

action and the time needed to prepare 

an application would likely be the same. 

Further, the proposed action may help 

small entities determine whether they 

have the interest, need, or capacity to 

implement activities under the program 

and, thus, prevent small entities that do 

not have such an interest, need, and 

capacity from absorbing the burden of 

applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities once they are 

able to meet the costs of compliance 

using the funds provided under this 

program. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small LEAs as to whether they believe 

this proposed regulatory action would 

have a significant economic impact on 

them and, if so, requests evidence to 

support that belief. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/ 

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to LEAs. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[in millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

Approximately up to 

$150. 

From Whom To 

Whom?.

From the Federal 

Government to 

LEAs. 

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)). 

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. We estimate that each 

applicant would spend approximately 

230 hours of staff time to address the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, 

prepare the application, and obtain 

necessary clearances. The total number 

of hours for all applicants will vary 

based on the number of applications. 

Based on the number of applications the 

Department received in the FY 2012 

competition, we expect to receive 

approximately 300 applications for 

these funds. The total number of hours 

for all expected applicants is an 

estimated 69,000 hours. We estimate the 

total cost per hour of the applicant-level 

staff who carry out this work to be $30 

per hour. The total estimated cost for all 

applicants would be $2,070,000. We 

have submitted an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for this 

collection to OMB. If you want to 

comment on the proposed 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 email 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 FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this notice. In preparing your comments 

you may want to review the ICR, which 

we maintain on the Regulations.gov 

Web site at http://regulations.gov. You 

may search for this ICR using docket ID 

ED–2013–OS–0050. This ICR is also 

available on OMB’s RegInfo Web site at 

www.reginfo.gov under OMB Number 

1894–0014. We consider your comments 

on this proposed collection of 

information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

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 proposed 

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 these proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

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 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Please note that 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. 

We will provide the OMB control 

number when we publish the notice of 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

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

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22467 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 10, 2013. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08847 Filed 4–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OPE–0008] 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; 

Public Hearings 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Intent to establish negotiated 

rulemaking committee. 

SUMMARY: In May 2012, we announced 

our intention to establish a negotiated 

rulemaking committee to prepare 

proposed regulations for the Federal 

Student Aid programs authorized under 

title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA) (title IV 

Federal Student Aid programs). We now 

announce additional topics for 

consideration for action by that 

committee. We also announce three 

public hearings at which interested 

parties may comment on the new topics 

suggested by the Department and may 

suggest additional topics for 

consideration for action by the 

negotiated rulemaking committee. For 

anyone unable to attend a public 

hearing, the Department will accept 

written comments. 

DATES: The dates, times, and locations 

of the public hearings are listed under 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this notice. We must receive written 

comments suggesting issues that should 

be considered for action by the 

negotiated rulemaking committee on or 

before May 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID (listed at the beginning of this 

notice) at the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket is available on the 

site under ‘‘How to Use 

Regulations.gov’’ in the Help section. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Wendy 

Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K Street NW., Room 8017, 

Washington, DC 20006. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about the public hearings, 

go to http://www2.ed.gov/policy/ 

highered/reg/hearulemaking/2012/ 

index.html or contact: Wendy Macias, 

U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K 

Street NW., Room 8017, Washington, 

DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502–7526. 

Email: wendy.macias@ed.gov. 

For information about negotiated 

rulemaking in general, see The 

Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title 

IV Regulations, Frequently Asked 

Questions at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/ 

highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/ 

neg-reg-faq.html or contact: Wendy 

Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K Street NW., Room 8017, 

Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: 

(202) 502–7526. Email: 

wendy.macias@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

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

audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting Wendy Macias, U.S. 

Department of Education, 1990 K Street 

NW., Room 8017, Washington, DC 

20006. Telephone: (202) 502–7526. 

Email: wendy.macias@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, 

2012, we published a notice in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 25658) 

announcing our intent to establish a 

negotiated rulemaking committee under 

section 492 of the HEA to develop 

proposed regulations designed to 

prevent fraud and otherwise ensure 

proper use of title IV Federal Student 

Aid program funds, especially within 

the context of current technologies. In 

particular, we announced our intent to 

propose regulations to address the use 

of debit cards and other banking 

mechanisms for disbursing title IV 

Federal Student Aid program funds, and 

to improve and streamline the campusbased Federal Student Aid programs. 

The notice also announced two public 

hearings at which interested parties 

could comment on the topics suggested 

by the Department and suggest 

additional topics for consideration for 

action by the negotiated rulemaking 

committee. The hearings were held on 

May 23, 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona, and 

on May 31, 2012, in Washington, DC. 

We invited parties to comment and 

submit topics for consideration in 

writing as well. Transcripts from the 

hearings can be found at http:// 

www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/ 

hearulemaking/2012/index.html. 

Written comments may be viewed 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. Instructions for 

finding comments are available on the 

site under ‘‘How to Use 

Regulations.gov’’ in the Help section. 

Individuals can enter docket ID ED– 

2012–OPE–0008 in the search box to 

locate the appropriate docket. 

At this time, we are announcing 

additional topics for consideration for 

action by the negotiated rulemaking 

committee. These topics include 

regulations that have been the subject of 

litigation over the past two years. We 

are also announcing three additional 

public hearings at which interested 

parties may comment on the new topics 

suggested by the Department and may 

suggest additional topics for 

consideration for action by the 

negotiating committee. For anyone 

unable to attend a public hearing, the 

Department will accept written 

comments. 

We intend to select participants for 

the negotiated rulemaking committee 

from nominees of the organizations and 

groups that represent the interests 

significantly affected by the proposed 

regulations. To the extent possible, we 

will select individual negotiators who 

reflect the diversity among program 

participants, in accordance with section 

492(b)(1) of the HEA. 

Regulatory Issues 

Over the next several years, the 

Department intends to conduct 

rulemakings related to the title IV 

Federal Student Aid programs. In the 

near term, as indicated by the topics 

suggested in the May 1, 2012, Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS