3242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

Copies of the proposed information 

collection request may be accessed from 

http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4777. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to (202) 401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection and OMB Control Number 

when making your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–(800) 877– 

8339. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1230 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0004] 

RIN 1810–AB14 

Comprehensive Centers Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.283B. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

(Assistant Secretary) proposes priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

under the Comprehensive Centers 

program. The Assistant Secretary may 

use these priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY or fiscal year) 2012 and 

later years. We intend to use the 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria to provide Federal financial 

assistance to eligible applicants seeking 

to provide technical assistance to help 

State educational agencies (SEAs) build 

their capacity to implement State-level 

initiatives and to support district- and 

school-level initiatives that improve 

educational outcomes for all students, 

close achievement gaps, and improve 

the quality of instruction. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via U.S. 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 at the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘How to Use This Site.’’ 

• U.S. Mail, Commercial Delivery, or 

Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about this notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria, address them to Fran 

Walter, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 

3W115, Washington, DC 20202–6132. 

Privacy Note: The U.S. Department of 

Education’s (Department) 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: Fran 

Walter. Telephone: (202) 205–9198, or 

by email: Fran.Walter@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation 

to Comment: We invite you to submit 

comments regarding this notice. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

and selection criteria, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

priority, requirement, 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, and selection 

criteria. Please let us know of any 

further opportunities we could take to 

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 the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria in 

room 3W115, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC, between the 

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

Washington, DC time, Monday through 

Friday of each week except Federal 

holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The 

Comprehensive Centers program 

supports the establishment of no fewer 

than 20 comprehensive technical 

assistance centers to provide technical 

assistance to SEAs that builds their 

capacity to support local educational 

agencies (LEAs or districts) and schools, 

especially low-performing districts and 

schools, improve educational outcomes 

for all students, close achievement gaps, 

and improve the quality of instruction. 

Program Authority: Title II, section 203, of 

the Education Technical Assistance Act of 

2002 (ETAA). 

I. Background 

The Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), holds States accountable for 

closing achievement gaps and ensuring 

that all children, regardless of race, 

ethnicity, family income, English 

language proficiency, or disability, 

receive a high-quality education and 

meet challenging State academic 

standards. 

The ETAA authorizes support for no 

fewer than 20 Comprehensive Centers to 

provide training, technical assistance, 

and professional development to SEAs, 

LEAs, regional educational agencies, 

and schools in the administration and 

implementation of programs under the 

ESEA. Under section 203(a)(2) of the 

ETAA, the Department is required to 

establish at least one center in each of 

the 10 geographic regions served by the 

Department’s Regional Educational 

Laboratories (RELs). Resources for 

centers established under the ETAA are 

determined on the basis of the number 

of school-aged children in each region, 

the proportion of economically 

disadvantaged students in each region, 

the higher cost of service delivery in 

sparsely populated areas, and the 

number of schools identified for 

improvement under section 1116(b) of 

the ESEA in each region. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3243 

The Department conducted the initial 

competition under the ETAA in 2005 

and made 5-year awards to 16 Regional 

Centers and 5 Content Centers. Each of 

the five Content Centers specialized in 

one of the following five areas: 

assessment and accountability, 

instruction, teacher quality, innovation 

and improvement, or high schools. 

The 16 Regional Centers focused 

almost entirely on helping SEAs 

implement ESEA requirements and 

increase capacity to assist their districts 

and schools in meeting student 

achievement goals. Each of the five 

Content Centers identified and analyzed 

key research and provided in-depth 

information in its area of expertise to 

the Regional Centers and SEAs. The 

Content Centers have more recently 

emphasized assisting the Regional 

Centers in using publications and tools 

to support State reform efforts, typically 

through webinars, the creation and 

support of online communities of 

practice, and in-person assistance to 

both SEA and Regional Center staff. 

In FYs 2010 and 2011, the Department 

extended the project period of the 

existing centers and negotiated new 

cooperative agreements with each 

center. These cooperative agreements 

retained the emphasis of the Regional 

Centers on building SEA capacity to 

support districts and schools in meeting 

student achievement goals. The 

agreements also retained the emphasis 

of the Content Centers on providing 

research-based publications and tools 

that include information, guidance, 

analyses, and services to inform the 

activities of the Regional Centers. At the 

same time, the agreements recognized 

that many States were initiating 

innovative reforms, such as adopting 

college- and career-ready standards, 

developing next-generation 

accountability systems, and 

implementing innovative mechanisms 

for improving teacher and leader 

effectiveness. 

The Comprehensive Centers will 

provide technical assistance at a time 

when States, districts, and schools are 

moving forward with innovative 

approaches to significantly improve 

student outcomes and are implementing 

college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments; next-generation 

accountability systems that focus on 

turning around the lowest-performing 

schools and closing achievement gaps; 

and human capital management systems 

that support effective teachers and 

leaders. 

The Department believes that the best 

way to support these State-led reforms, 

consistent with the requirements of both 

the ESEA and the ETAA, is to focus the 

Comprehensive Centers funded under 

this program on building SEA capacity. 

In particular, we believe the centers 

must focus on helping SEAs (1) create 

sustainable organizational structures 

and performance management systems 

that support key initiatives and help 

them set priorities for using their 

resources, (2) increase their ability to 

use those structures and systems to 

ensure that districts and schools are 

provided with high-quality services and 

supports, (3) support the 

implementation and scaling up of 

innovative and effective strategies in 

districts and schools, (4) identify and 

implement a continuum of supports and 

interventions to address the specific and 

varying needs of districts and schools, 

and (5) ensure the sustainability of 

State-led reforms. 

Regional and Content Centers. The 

Comprehensive Centers competition 

would encompass both Regional Centers 

and Content Centers, retaining the 

program’s two-tiered approach to 

helping SEAs build their capacity to 

implement State-level initiatives and 

support district- and school-level 

initiatives that improve educational 

outcomes for all students, close 

achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction. Regional Centers 

would be the direct link to States. They 

would respond to States’ needs by 

providing relevant technical assistance 

and expert advice and helping them 

implement, support, scale up, and 

sustain statewide reforms. Regional 

Centers would also make expert advice 

available to States from Content Centers, 

other Department-funded technical 

assistance providers, and other 

individuals and organizations. In 

addition, under the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria, 

Regional Centers would be expected to 

have a broad understanding of the 

context and status of education reform 

in each of the States they serve and to 

maintain a regular and highly visible 

presence in the region. They would also 

be expected to develop strong 

relationships and partnerships within 

each State and across their regional 

communities that are likely to ensure 

the delivery of high-quality, relevant, 

and useful technical assistance. 

The Department is proposing to 

further focus technical assistance from 

Regional Centers on key areas that 

correspond to State-led reforms already 

underway across the Nation: 

implementing college- and career-ready 

standards and aligned, high-quality 

assessments for all students; identifying, 

recruiting, developing, and retaining 

highly effective teachers and leaders; 

turning around the lowest-performing 

schools; ensuring the school readiness 

and success of preschool-age children 

and their successful transition to 

kindergarten-through-grade-three (K–3) 

learning; building rigorous instructional 

pathways that support the successful 

transition of all students from secondary 

education to college without the need 

for remediation, and to careers; 

identifying and scaling up innovative 

approaches to teaching and learning that 

significantly improve student outcomes; 

and using data-based decision-making 

to improve instructional practices, 

policies, and student outcomes. 

In turn, the Content Centers funded 

under this program would work to 

increase the depth of knowledge and 

expertise available to Regional Centers 

and SEAs in key topic areas. Content 

Centers would complement the work of 

the Regional Centers by providing 

information, publications, tools, and 

specialized technical assistance based 

on research-based practices, as well as 

emerging promising-practices. 

Generally, research-based practices are 

practices that meet the strong or 

moderate evidence standards of the 

What Works Clearinghouse (http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). Where strong or 

moderate evidence is not available on a 

topic, each center will explore emerging 

promising practices that could inform 

their technical assistance efforts. The 

Content Centers also would play a key 

role in improving efficiency in 

developing and disseminating technical 

assistance by, for example, avoiding the 

duplication and higher costs of parallel 

efforts by two or three Regional Centers. 

To support these and other efforts, the 

Assistant Secretary is proposing in this 

notice funding priorities for seven 

Content Centers: (1) The Center on 

Standards and Assessments 

Implementation, (2) the Center on Great 

Teachers and Leaders, (3) the Center on 

School Turnaround, (4) the Center on 

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes, (5) 

the Center on College and Career 

Readiness and Success, (6) the Center 

on Building State Capacity and 

Productivity, and (7) the Center on 

Innovations in Learning. 

The Comprehensive Centers program 

represents a significant investment in 

technical assistance to SEAs. The 

Department is committed to supporting 

SEAs, districts, and schools as they 

work to implement their own reform 

priorities in the context of Federal 

program requirements. Therefore, the 

Department intends to have substantial 

and sustained involvement in the 

activities of all centers to ensure that 

they are responsive to State needs. The 

details and parameters of the 

Department’s expectations and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

involvement will be included in a 

cooperative agreement with each 

grantee. 

Regional Advisory Committees. To 

help inform the priorities that we are 

proposing under this program, the 

Secretary of Education (the Secretary) 

(in accordance with section 206 of the 

ETAA) in 2011 established 10 Regional 

Advisory Committees (RACs) charged 

with conducting educational needs 

assessments within the geographic 

regions served by the current RELs. 

The RACs conducted their needs 

assessments from June 2011 to August 

2011 and submitted their reports to the 

Secretary on November 15, 2011. The 

full reports are available at: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/ 

resources.html. 

Potential applicants for the centers are 

encouraged to consider the specific 

educational needs assessment results 

and recommendations contained in the 

RAC reports when preparing their 

applications. 

II. Proposed Priorities 

This notice contains nine proposed 

priorities. The Assistant Secretary may 

use one or more of these priorities for 

the FY 2012 Comprehensive Centers 

program competition or for any 

subsequent competitions. We may 

choose in the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria to 

include the substance of these priorities 

in the selection criteria. 

Proposed Priority for Regional Centers 

Proposed Priority 1: Regional Centers. 

Each Regional Center must provide 

high-quality technical assistance that 

focuses on key initiatives, aligns with 

the work of the Content Centers, and 

builds the capacity of SEAs to 

implement, support, scale up, and 

sustain initiatives statewide and to lead 

and support their LEAs and schools in 

improving student outcomes. Key 

initiatives include: (1) Implementing 

college- and career-ready standards and 

aligned, high-quality assessments for all 

students; (2) identifying, recruiting, 

developing, and retaining highly 

effective teachers and leaders; (3) 

turning around the lowest-performing 

schools; (4) ensuring the school 

readiness and success of preschool-age 

children and their successful transition 

to kindergarten; (5) building rigorous 

instructional pathways that support the 

successful transition of all students from 

secondary education to college without 

the need for remediation, and careers; 

(6) identifying and scaling up 

innovative approaches to teaching and 

learning that significantly improve 

student outcomes; and (7) using databased decision-making to improve 

instructional practices, policies, and 

student outcomes. 

Proposed Priorities for Content Centers 

Proposed Priority 2: Center on 

Standards and Assessments 

Implementation. The Center on 

Standards and Assessments 

Implementation must provide technical 

assistance and identify, synthesize, and 

disseminate research-based practices 

and emerging promising practices that 

will lead to the increased capacity of 

SEAs to support their districts and 

schools in implementing rigorous 

college- and career-ready standards and 

aligned high-quality assessments. 

Proposed Priority 3: Center on Great 

Teachers and Leaders. The Center on 

Great Teachers and Leaders must 

provide technical assistance and 

identify, synthesize, and disseminate 

research-based practices and emerging 

promising practices that will lead to the 

increased capacity of SEAs to support 

their districts and schools in improving 

student outcomes by supporting 

effective instruction and leadership. 

Proposed Priority 4: Center on School 

Turnaround. The Center on School 

Turnaround must provide technical 

assistance and identify, synthesize, and 

disseminate research-based practices 

and emerging promising practices that 

will lead to the increased capacity of 

SEAs to support their districts and 

schools in turning around their lowestperforming schools. 

Proposed Priority 5: Center on 

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. 

The Center on Enhancing Early Learning 

Outcomes must provide technical 

assistance and identify, synthesize, and 

disseminate research-based practices 

and emerging promising practices that 

will lead to the increased capacity of 

SEAs to implement comprehensive and 

aligned preschool-to-third-grade early 

learning systems in order to increase the 

number of children from birth to third 

grade who are prepared to succeed in 

school. 

Proposed Priority 6: Center on College 

and Career Readiness and Success. The 

Center on College and Career Readiness 

and Success must provide technical 

assistance and identify, synthesize, and 

disseminate research-based practices 

and emerging promising practices that 

will lead to the increased capacity of 

SEAs to support districts and schools in 

implementing comprehensive strategies 

that promote college- and careerreadiness for students in kindergarten 

through grade 12 (K–12) and ensure the 

successful transition of all students from 

high school graduation to postsecondary 

education and the workforce. 

Proposed Priority 7: Center on 

Building State Capacity and 

Productivity. The Center on Building 

State Capacity and Productivity must 

provide technical assistance and 

identify, synthesize, and disseminate 

research-based practices and emerging 

promising practices that will increase 

the capacity of SEAs to implement their 

key initiatives statewide and support 

district- and school-level 

implementation of effective practices to 

improve student outcomes. 

Proposed Priority 8: Center on 

Innovations in Learning. The Center on 

Innovations in Learning must provide 

technical assistance and identify, 

synthesize, and disseminate researchbased practices and emerging promising 

practices that will lead to the increased 

capacity of SEAs to identify and scale 

up innovative approaches that 

significantly improve, or have the 

potential to significantly improve, 

student outcomes. 

Proposed Priority for All Centers 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 9: Cost-Sharing or Matching. 

Background: Many national, regional, 

and local foundations, civic 

organizations, and corporations are 

currently investing in building SEA and 

district capacity to implement 

comprehensive education reforms. We 

believe that combining the Department’s 

efforts and resources with these external 

efforts and resources will help increase 

and extend the reach of the 

Comprehensive Centers program. 

Therefore, we are proposing a 

competitive preference priority for 

applicants that provide evidence of a 

commitment from a partner or partners 

of funds or an in-kind match, or both, 

that totals at least 15 percent of the total 

grant budget. The Department believes 

that applicants who partner with these 

types of private or public entities and 

secure a financial or in-kind 

commitment of at least 15 percent of 

their proposed budget will be in a better 

position to support States in building 

their capacity. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 9: To meet this priority, an 

applicant must provide evidence in the 

application of a commitment of a 

matching contribution, in funds or in 

kind, or both, of at least 15 percent of 

its total grant budget from one or more 

entities or organizations in the public or 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations. The entire 

amount of the matching contribution 

must be non-Federal funds. See 34 CFR 

80.24. Evidence of the commitment of 

the financial or in-kind matching 

contribution must include the full 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3245 

amount and source of the matching 

contribution, and the date that the funds 

or in-kind contributions will be 

received. Examples of such evidence 

include funding agreements with a 

public or private-sector entity, or other 

signed documents such as commitment 

letters. The evidence should not include 

contingencies that raise concerns about 

the funding commitment other than that 

the applicant must be awarded a 

Comprehensive Centers grant award. An 

award will not be made unless the 

applicant provides evidence that the full 

amount of the match has been 

committed. 

If an applicant provides evidence of 

matching funds or in-kind contributions 

in excess of 15 percent of its grant 

budget, an applicant may receive 

additional points. Additional points 

may be awarded to the extent that the 

applicant provides evidence of a 

committed financial or in-kind 

matching contribution up to 100 percent 

of its grant budget. The Department will 

specify in the notice inviting 

applications the number of points to be 

awarded for specific ranges of matching 

amounts. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, and unless already 

established as a specific type of priority 

through regulation, we designate the 

type of each priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

The effect of each type of priority 

follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the 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)). 

III. Proposed Comprehensive Center 

Requirements 

A. Proposed Requirements for All 

Centers 

1. Provide high-quality technical 

assistance. Each center must deliver 

technical assistance that is based on 

research-based practices and emerging 

promising practices; highly relevant and 

useful to SEAs, LEAs, and school 

policymakers and practitioners; timely; 

and cost efficient. 

2. Provide technical assistance to 

build State capacity. Each center must 

provide technical assistance to help 

SEAs build their capacity to implement 

State-level initiatives and support 

district- and school-level initiatives that 

improve educational outcomes for all 

students, close achievement gaps, and 

improve the quality of instruction. 

For the purposes of this notice, the 

process of ‘‘building capacity’’ includes 

helping SEAs— 

a. Build internal organizational 

strength through such activities as 

creating sustainable organizational 

structures and effective performance 

management systems, building staff 

expertise within those structures to 

ensure that districts and schools are 

provided high-quality services and 

supports, and better aligning programs 

and policies through strengthening 

connections (e.g., communication, 

collaboration) among different work 

streams (e.g., divisions, grant programs); 

and 

b. Build organizational capacity to 

support district- and school-level 

implementation of effective practices to 

improve student outcomes—for 

example, by working collaboratively 

and productively with districts and 

schools; identifying and implementing a 

continuum of supports and 

interventions to address the needs of 

districts and schools; supporting the 

implementation and scaling up of 

innovative and effective strategies; 

sustaining effective practices; engaging 

effective external service providers; and 

involving key stakeholders, including 

parents, in decisionmaking. 

3. Coordination and Collaboration. In 

addition to the statutory requirement 

under section 203(f)(2) of the ETAA to 

collaborate with the Department and 

other entities, each center must 

collaborate with other Comprehensive 

Centers funded under this program; the 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 

including the What Works 

Clearinghouse and the RELs; technical 

assistance centers funded under other 

Department programs; and other 

technical assistance providers to 

address SEA needs. Each center must— 

a. Develop strong, ongoing 

relationships and partnerships with 

leading experts and organizations 

nationwide to supplement and enhance, 

as appropriate, center staff’s expertise, 

skills, and experience and to ensure that 

technical assistance is informed by 

research-based practices and emerging 

promising practices; 

b. Coordinate center activities with 

the work of other technical assistance 

providers to make the best use of 

available knowledge and resources and 

avoid duplicating efforts; and 

c. Participate in sharing and 

exchanging information through a 

common online portal administered by 

a center funded by the Department for 

the purpose of sharing technical 

assistance expertise, materials, and 

other applicable resources across 

Comprehensive Centers, other 

Department-funded technical assistance 

providers, SEAs, districts, and schools. 

4. Evaluation. Each center must 

develop a plan to engage a third party 

to assess the progress and performance 

of the center in meeting the educational 

and capacity-building needs of the 

center’s clients. 

B. Proposed Requirements for All 

Regional Centers 

In addition to the requirements for all 

centers described in this notice, each 

Regional Center must— 

1. Assess each State’s needs and 

develop an annual work plan in 

partnership with each SEA in its region 

and the Content Centers, as appropriate, 

that— 

a. Provides technical assistance to 

build SEA capacity to implement, 

support, scale up, and sustain initiatives 

that address the following key areas: (1) 

Implementing college- and career-ready 

standards and aligned, high-quality 

assessments for all students; (2) 

identifying, recruiting, developing, and 

retaining highly effective teachers and 

leaders; (3) turning around the lowestperforming schools; (4) ensuring the 

school-readiness and success of 

preschool-age children and their 

successful transition to K–3 learning; (5) 

building rigorous instructional 

pathways that support the successful 

transition of all students from secondary 

education to college, without the need 

for remediation, and to careers; (6) 

identifying and scaling up innovative 

approaches to teaching and learning that 

significantly improve, or have potential 

to significantly improve, student 

outcomes; and (7) using data-based 

decisionmaking to improve 

instructional practices, policies, and 

student outcomes; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

c. Addresses the needs of each SEA in 

the region based on the SEA’s unique 

context, challenges, and current 

capacity; 

d. Articulates the commitment by the 

center and the SEA to devote time, 

leadership, and personnel needed to 

implement the work plan; 

e. Addresses the demands of 

implementing integrated State 

longitudinal data systems and using 

data from these systems and other 

sources to improve student outcomes, in 

collaboration with RELs, as appropriate; 

and 

f. Addresses the needs of all students, 

including English Learners, students 

with disabilities, and low-achieving 

students; 

2. Deliver high-quality intensive 

technical assistance to SEAs that— 

a. Provides regular virtual and on-site 

support and coaching at a frequency 

appropriate to ensuring high-quality 

implementation of the work plan; 

b. Facilitates collaborative activities 

and strategies for evaluating and 

continuously improving organizational 

structures and processes; 

c. Draws on the expertise of the 

Center on Building State Capacity and 

Productivity; 

d. Facilitates productive SEA 

interactions with LEAs and other 

stakeholders to support implementation 

of key initiatives focused on improving 

student outcomes; 

e. Helps SEAs implement researchedbased practices and emerging promising 

practices identified by the Content 

Centers and other leading experts and 

organizations nationwide; and 

f. Provides opportunities for SEAs to 

meet with and learn from researchers, 

experts, and each other about practical 

and effective strategies for 

implementing key initiatives, including 

by, for example, organizing or 

facilitating SEA participation in 

communities of practice; and 

3. Make all training materials, rubrics, 

manuals, presentations, and other 

materials developed during the grant 

period publicly and freely available 

through the online portal described in 

the coordination and collaboration 

requirement for all centers. 

Note: The requirements for all Regional 

Centers do not support the development of 

new content. A Regional Center applicant 

will not satisfy these requirements if it 

proposes a technical assistance plan that 

includes development work, such as 

designing or developing curricula or 

instructional materials for use in classrooms, 

developing educational programs, or 

conducting research, monitoring, or program 

evaluations for an SEA. A Regional Center 

may propose to create materials to be used 

in capacity-building activities with the SEA, 

such as decision matrices, written responses 

to information requests, self-assessment 

rubrics, or presentation materials. In 

addition, to the extent that an applicant 

proposes to work with individual school 

districts or schools, the applicant must 

propose technical assistance that reaches a 

large number or proportion of districts or 

schools in the State, responds to a need 

identified by an SEA, and is planned, 

coordinated, and executed in concert with 

the SEA. 

C. Proposed Requirements for All 

Content Centers 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers described in 

this notice, each Content Center must— 

1. Assess national needs and develop 

an annual work plan that— 

a. Takes into account the needs of 

SEAs and Regional Centers in its area of 

expertise; 

b. Addresses its specific area of 

expertise; and 

c. Addresses the needs of all students, 

including English Learners, students 

with disabilities, and low-achieving 

students; 

2. Deliver high-quality technical 

assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs 

in its area of expertise that— 

a. Reflects collaboration with Regional 

Centers to address identified needs of 

SEAs; 

b. Provides opportunities for SEAs to 

learn from researchers, experts, and 

each other by, for example, participating 

in, organizing, or facilitating SEA 

participation in communities of 

practice; and 

c. Differentiates the delivery of 

technical assistance based on the 

current capacity and needs of the 

Regional Centers and SEAs; 

3. Translate expertise, research-based 

practices and emerging promising 

practices into high-quality publications, 

tools, and services appropriate for SEAs, 

LEAs, and school policymakers and 

practitioners; and 

4. Make all training materials, rubrics, 

manuals, presentations, and other 

materials developed during the grant 

period publicly and freely available 

through the online portal described in 

the coordination and collaboration 

requirement for all centers. 

D. Proposed Requirements for the 

Center on Standards and Assessments 

Implementation 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers described in this notice, 

the Center on Standards and 

Assessments Implementation must 

provide technical assistance to Regional 

Centers and SEAs that focuses on— 

1. State implementation of collegeand career-ready standards for students 

and schools statewide, as well as State 

development and administration of 

aligned high-quality assessments such 

as those under development by the Race 

to the Top Assessment program grantees 

(http://www.2.ed.gov/programs/ 

racetothetop-assessment/index.html) 

and by General Supervision 

Enhancement Grants (GSEG) program 

grantees, who are developing alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities; 

2. The instructional implications of 

transitioning to new standards, 

including the need for aligned, highquality instructional materials and highquality professional development and 

other supports to prepare teachers to 

teach all students, including English 

Learners, students with disabilities, and 

low-achieving students, to college- and 

career-ready standards; 

3. Integrating new standards and 

assessments with State accountability 

systems and State, district, and school 

teacher and leader support and 

evaluation systems; and 

4. Using assessment data and other 

measures of student performance to 

inform instruction, differentiate school 

performance levels, and evaluate district 

and school improvement policies and 

activities. 

E. Proposed Requirements for the Center 

on Great Teachers and Leaders 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers described in this notice, 

the Center on Great Teachers and 

Leaders must provide technical 

assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs 

that focuses on— 

1. Developing the knowledge and 

skills of teachers and leaders, with 

emphasis on improving instructional 

practices that help students meet 

college- and career-ready standards; 

2. Strategies to ensure the equitable 

distribution of effective teachers and to 

meet demand in hard-to-staff schools 

and subjects and in rural areas; 

3. Strategies to recruit, reward, retain, 

and support effective teachers and 

leaders by, for example, offering 

opportunities for career advancement; 

4. Developing and implementing 

teacher and leader human capital 

management systems (e.g., systems 

related to recruiting, evaluating, 

developing, rewarding, and retaining 

teachers and leaders), including teacher 

and leader evaluation and support 

systems that use multiple valid 

measures of effectiveness (including 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3247 

student growth and other measures of 

professional performance), differentiate 

performance levels, inform professional 

development needs, and focus on 

continuously improving instruction for 

teachers in both tested and non-tested 

grades and subjects, including teachers 

of English learners and students with 

disabilities; and 

5. Using data from human capital 

management systems, State longitudinal 

data systems, and other sources to guide 

professional development and improve 

instruction. 

F. Proposed Requirements for the Center 

on School Turnaround 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers described in this notice, 

the Center on School Turnaround must 

provide technical assistance to Regional 

Centers and SEAs that focuses on— 

1. Developing and strengthening 

organizational systems and structures 

that promote and sustain 

comprehensive district and school 

reforms that lead to significant gains in 

student outcomes and close 

achievement gaps in the lowestperforming schools; 

2. Developing effective tools, 

processes, and policies for States to 

monitor and support district and school 

efforts to turn around the lowestperforming schools; the tools, processes, 

and policies could include ways to 

select and monitor external providers, 

support and develop turnaround 

leaders, and analyze and use data; 

3. Collecting and disseminating 

information and resources on successful 

school turnaround models; 

4. Collecting and disseminating 

information and resources on promising 

and emerging State, district, and school 

approaches to: (a) Improving student 

outcomes and closing achievement gaps, 

(b) addressing non-academic factors that 

impact student achievement, such as 

students’ social, emotional, and health 

needs, and (c) sustaining improvements 

across a broad spectrum (e.g., urban, 

rural, high-poverty) of the lowestperforming schools and across student 

populations (e.g., English Learners, 

students with disabilities); these 

approaches may include extending 

learning time; and 

4. Facilitating support networks and 

ongoing learning opportunities for 

SEAs, LEAs, and school policymakers 

and practitioners serving the lowestperforming schools, which may include 

managing and supporting an online 

community of practice. 

G. Proposed Requirements for the 

Center on Enhancing Early Learning 

Outcomes 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers, the Center on 

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes 

must provide technical assistance to 

Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses 

on— 

1. Aligning preschool and K–3 

education policies and systems in order 

to increase successful transitions as 

children enter kindergarten and to close 

the achievement gap, particularly for 

children with high needs; 

2. Increasing knowledge and expertise 

among SEA staff and among State-level 

early learning program staff in 

understanding the purposes and uses of 

a full range of early childhood 

assessment strategies and instruments 

and in selecting assessment instruments 

and approaches that are appropriate for 

all children, including English Learners, 

students with disabilities, and lowachieving students; 

3. Using assessment data and other 

information to improve the quality of 

instruction in early learning programs; 

4. Increasing the effectiveness of the 

early learning workforce—for example, 

by assisting SEAs in developing and 

implementing statewide workforce 

knowledge and competency frameworks 

designed to support children’s learning 

and development and improve 

outcomes; supporting more robust early 

childhood educator preparation and 

professional development efforts; and 

developing a common, statewide 

progression of teaching credentials and 

degrees aligned with the State 

frameworks; and 

5. Working to integrate and align 

resources and policies across State 

agencies and programs to support a 

coordinated statewide system that 

promotes children’s success in school. 

H. Proposed Requirements for the 

Center on College and Career Readiness 

and Success 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers described in this notice, 

the Center on College and Career 

Readiness and Success must provide 

technical assistance to Regional Centers 

and SEAs that focuses on— 

1. Policies and practices that— 

a. Support the successful transition of 

all students from secondary education 

to college, without the need for 

remediation, and to careers; and 

b. Increase postsecondary enrollment, 

persistence, and completion—for 

example, by assisting SEAs in aligning 

secondary and postsecondary learning 

expectations, strengthening the rigor of 

high school courses and pathways, and 

providing college counseling; 

2. SEA development and scaling up of 

statewide rigorous career and technical 

education (CTE) programs that align 

with college- and career-ready standards 

and lead to an industry-recognized 

credential or postsecondary certificate 

or degree—for example, by 

implementing high-quality, 

academically rigorous CTE programs 

and courses; providing high school 

credits for work-based learning 

opportunities; providing college credit 

for secondary school academic and 

technical courses through statewide 

secondary-postsecondary articulation 

agreements; implementing career 

counseling services that incorporate the 

most up-to-date information on existing 

and emerging in-demand industry 

sectors and occupations; and aligning 

CTE programs and priorities with State 

and local economic development 

strategies, industry standards in existing 

and emerging in-demand industry 

sectors and occupations, and job growth 

data; 

3. High-quality science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

instruction that supports and challenges 

students through a progression of STEM 

courses and the transition to 

postsecondary degree and certificate 

programs in STEM fields; 

4. Implementing accelerated learning 

strategies such as dual-credit and early 

college options, General Educational 

Development (GED)-to-college 

pathways, competency-based pathways, 

and other programs designed to 

encourage and support the successful 

transition of all students, especially 

disadvantaged and first-generation 

college-going students, dropouts who reenter school, and students with 

disabilities, from secondary school into 

postsecondary education or training 

programs; and 

5. Effectively using data—for 

example, using early warning and 

college- and career-readiness indicators 

to identify secondary school students 

needing additional support, or 

implementing approaches, consistent 

with Federal, State, and local privacy 

laws and regulations, to allow data to be 

shared between LEAs and 

postsecondary institutions to improve 

student transitions. 

I. Proposed Requirements for the Center 

on Building State Capacity and 

Productivity 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers described in this notice, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

the Center on Building State Capacity 

and Productivity must provide technical 

assistance to Regional Centers and SEAs 

that focuses on— 

1. Building the internal organizational 

capacity of SEAs by— 

a. Supporting the implementation of 

sustainable organizational structures 

and effective performance management 

systems that help SEAs support key 

education initiatives and set priorities 

for using their resources; 

b. Helping SEAs build their staffs’ 

leadership skills and expertise so that 

staff can effectively lead and support 

education initiatives and ensure that 

districts and schools are provided with 

high-quality services and supports; 

c. Helping SEAs strengthen 

information sharing across 

organizational units within SEAs in 

order to facilitate cross-cutting work 

that increases the success of State- and 

district-level initiatives designed to 

improve student outcomes and that 

enhances the sustainability of these 

initiatives; 

d. Helping SEAs make more efficient 

use of scarce resources—for example, by 

measuring and comparing the costs of 

similar systems, processes, programs, 

and products; and 

e. Identifying State- and district-level 

research-based practices and emerging 

promising practices in such areas as 

human capital management, financial 

data systems, and return-on-investment 

analyses that can inform decision 

making and help SEAs improve 

productivity and reduce costs across 

classrooms, schools, districts, and 

States; and 

2. Building the organizational 

capacity of SEAs to support district- and 

school-level implementation of 

initiatives designed to improve student 

outcomes by helping SEAs— 

a. Build collaborative and productive 

relationships with their LEAs; provide 

technical assistance that builds the 

capacity of its LEAs; facilitate the 

sharing of research-based practices, 

emerging promising practices, and 

problem-solving strategies among LEAs; 

and identify ways in which the SEA can 

help its LEAs scale up effective 

practices; 

b. Identify and implement a 

continuum of supports and 

interventions to address the needs of 

districts and schools; 

c. Develop processes to identify and 

select effective external partners and 

monitor their progress in achieving 

stated goals and objectives; and 

d. Engage and provide information to 

key stakeholders, including parents, on 

the implementation of key initiatives. 

J. Proposed Requirements for the Center 

on Innovations in Learning 

In addition to the proposed 

requirements for all centers and for all 

Content Centers described in this notice, 

the Center on Innovations in Learning 

must provide technical assistance to 

Regional Centers and SEAs that focuses 

on— 

1. Identifying and implementing 

policies, strategies, and practices that 

encourage the identification and scaling 

up of new teaching and learning 

strategies, approaches, processes, or 

tools that significantly improve, or have 

the potential to significantly improve, 

student outcomes—for example, 

through analyzing State and district data 

to identify positive trends or unique 

patterns that indicate significant 

improvement, or the potential for 

significant improvement, in student 

outcomes; helping States use 

competitions to identify the most 

promising innovations; helping States 

rigorously evaluate promising 

innovations; and supporting States’ 

broad adoption of the most promising 

and proven innovations and the 

replacement of less effective programs 

and practices; 

2. Identifying and implementing 

policies, strategies, and practices that 

encourage improved student outcomes 

through personalization of learning for 

each student—for example, by helping 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools provide 

opportunities for self-paced learning, 

implement instructional approaches and 

subject matter matched to students 

needs and interests, and increase access 

to experts, teachers, and peers who can 

address specific student needs and 

interests; 

3. Selecting and implementing 

technologies that support the 

personalization of learning—for 

example, (a) data systems that allow 

teachers to better differentiate 

instruction and instructional resources 

for maximum effectiveness and (b) 

adaptive instructional systems that 

enable students to optimize the pace of 

learning and individualize the 

instructional content they need to 

achieve mastery; 

4. Using State and local data systems 

to identify specific areas of student need 

and evaluate the effectiveness of 

specific strategies that support 

innovations in learning—for example, 

practices that improve student learning 

outcomes, that increase the number of 

individuals served without increasing 

resources, or that maintain educational 

outcomes and the number of students 

served while using fewer resources; and 

5. Identifying and implementing 

policies and practices that accelerate the 

adoption of promising and proven 

personalized learning strategies, 

practices, and tools. 

K. Proposed Application Requirements 

1. Technical Assistance Plan 

An applicant for a Regional Center 

must submit as part of its application a 

five-year plan of technical assistance 

that describes how it will meet the 

program requirements for all centers 

and for Regional Centers. An applicant 

for a Content Center must submit as part 

of its application a five-year plan of 

technical assistance that describes how 

it will meet the program requirements 

for all centers, the general requirements 

for all Content Centers, and the 

applicable Content Center requirements 

described in this notice. 

2. Subject-Matter and Technical 

Expertise 

An applicant for a Regional or 

Content Center must provide a narrative 

describing the subject-matter and 

technical expertise of proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants. At a minimum, the 

narrative must include the names and 

resumes for the proposed center staff. 

a. All Centers. An applicant for a 

Regional or Content Center must 

provide evidence in its application 

demonstrating that the proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of 

the research-based practices and 

emerging promising practices that will 

enable the applicant to provide highquality technical assistance specifically 

related to building SEA capacity to 

implement State-level initiatives and to 

support district- and school-level 

initiatives that improve educational 

outcomes for all students, close 

achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction; and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Delivering high-quality, relevant 

technical assistance and sharing 

expertise with SEAs or multiple 

districts. An applicant must provide 

evidence of the effect that its technical 

assistance has had on SEAs or LEAs, 

such as improved student outcomes, 

increased organizational capacity, the 

establishment of effective structures or 

processes, or high levels of client 

satisfaction. 

(b) Supporting SEAs or multiple 

districts in implementing key initiatives 

and in making systemic changes beyond 

individual districts or schools. 

(c) Building collaborative 

relationships with leading experts and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3249 

organizations in applicable areas of 

expertise to increase the quality, 

relevance, and usefulness of technical 

assistance. 

b. Regional Centers. In addition to the 

subject-matter and technical expertise 

outlined for all center applicants, an 

applicant for a Regional Center must 

provide evidence in its application 

demonstrating that the proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) The context and status of 

education reform in each of the States 

the applicant would serve; 

(b) Leading research on implementing 

educational initiatives and practices and 

on how to help SEAs implement, 

support, scale up, and sustain practices 

that address identified problems; 

(c) LEA support systems within States 

the applicant would serve, such as 

networks of educational service 

agencies and third-party systems of 

support, and how to use those systems 

to provide high-quality support to 

districts and schools; and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Working with SEAs or multiple 

districts to implement comprehensive or 

innovative plans to improve student 

achievement or provide large-scale 

technical assistance focused on 

improving student outcomes. 

(b) Developing and implementing 

performance and project management 

systems on a large scale or in large, 

complex, public-sector institutions. 

(c) Facilitating communities of 

practice within and across States. 

c. Center on Standards and 

Assessments Implementation. In 

addition to the subject-matter and 

technical expertise outlined for all 

centers, an applicant for the Center on 

Standards and Assessments 

Implementation must provide evidence 

in its application demonstrating that the 

proposed center staff, including any 

partners and consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) The Common Core State Standards 

and other college- and career-ready 

standards that States have adopted, 

including detailed knowledge and 

understanding of the differences in 

expectations embedded in these 

standards compared to those embedded 

in current State standards; 

(b) The work of the Smarter Balanced 

assessment consortium and the 

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness 

for College and Careers (PARCC) 

assessment consortium, as well as other 

State-developed assessments that are 

linked to college- and career-ready 

standards, including assessment designs 

and the status of efforts to develop and 

pilot the new assessments; and 

(c) Instructional strategies and highquality curricula that are aligned with 

rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards and support the teaching and 

learning of all students, including 

English Learners, students with 

disabilities, and low-achieving students; 

and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Working successfully with SEAs or 

multiple districts on the 

implementation of new standards or 

assessments. 

(b) Working with experts and 

practitioners involved in college- and 

career-ready assessment efforts 

supported by States, such as the Smarter 

Balanced or PARCC assessment 

consortia. 

(c) Working with SEAs or multiple 

districts in aligning curricular and 

instructional options, as well as teacher 

and leader professional development, 

with new, more rigorous standards. 

(d) Working with SEAs, LEAs, or 

school policymakers and practitioners 

on the interpretation and appropriate 

use of assessment data. 

d. Center on Great Teachers and 

Leaders. In addition to the subjectmatter and technical expertise outlined 

for all centers, an applicant for the 

Center on Great Teachers and Leaders 

must provide evidence in its application 

demonstrating that the proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) Teacher and leader professional 

development that improves instruction 

and helps students meet college- and 

career-ready standards; 

(b) Strategies to improve teacher and 

leader recruitment and retention; 

(c) Designing or improving teacher 

and leader human capital management 

systems, including teacher and leader 

evaluation and support systems, that are 

based in significant part on student 

growth, differentiate performance, 

include multiple measures of 

effectiveness, inform professional 

development, and focus on continuous 

improvement of instruction; and 

(d) The broad range of SEA and 

district teacher and leader human 

capital management systems, State 

policies that facilitate or hinder the 

development of such high-quality 

systems, and possible barriers to the 

equitable distribution of effective 

teachers and leaders; and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Working successfully with SEAs or 

multiple districts on improving the 

quality of instruction statewide or 

across multiple districts. 

(b) Working collaboratively with 

teacher and leader preparation 

organizations, institutions of higher 

education, charter management 

organizations, or other teacher and 

leader preparation and development 

groups to develop, implement, or 

improve teacher and leader human 

capital management systems, including 

teacher and leader evaluation and 

support systems. 

e. Center on School Turnaround. In 

addition to the subject-matter and 

technical expertise outlined for all 

centers, an applicant for the Center on 

School Turnaround must provide 

evidence in its application 

demonstrating that the proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) The approaches States, districts, 

and schools are taking to turn around 

their lowest-performing schools, 

including efforts under the School 

Improvement Grants and Race to the 

Top programs; and 

(b) Emerging promising practices, 

including non-academic practices that 

impact student outcomes, for improving 

student outcomes in the lowestperforming schools, particularly those 

engaged in school turnaround efforts; 

and 

ii. Experience working with SEAs or 

multiple districts on school turnaround 

efforts, including helping SEAs or 

multiple districts develop and 

implement structures or systems that 

promote and sustain comprehensive 

district and school reforms and 

processes and tools to monitor 

turnaround efforts. 

f. Center on Enhancing Early Learning 

Outcomes. In addition to the subjectmatter and technical expertise outlined 

for all centers, an applicant for the 

Center on Enhancing Early Learning 

Outcomes must provide evidence in its 

application demonstrating that the 

proposed center staff, including any 

partners and consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) State early learning and 

development standards that define what 

children should know and be able to do 

from birth through third grade; 

(b) Principles and approaches to 

appropriately assess young children’s 

knowledge and skills from birth through 

third grade, including expertise in the 

field of psychometrics; and 

(c) The issues related to improving the 

workforce serving children from birth 

through third grade, including issues 

related to workforce competencies, 

certifications, and compensation; and 

ii. Experience in the following: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

(a) Providing technical assistance to 

SEAs or multiple districts on selecting, 

using, and interpreting the results of 

early childhood assessments. 

(b) Assisting SEAs or multiple 

districts on building an effective early 

childhood workforce. 

g. Center on College and Career 

Readiness and Success. In addition to 

the subject-matter and technical 

expertise outlined for all centers, an 

applicant for the Center on College and 

Career Readiness and Success must 

provide evidence in its application 

demonstrating that the proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants, possess— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) Research-based practices and 

emerging promising practices that 

support the successful transition of all 

students from secondary education to 

college, without the need for 

remediation, and to careers; 

(b) Rigorous career and technical 

education programs of study that align 

with college- and career-ready 

standards; and 

(c) High-quality STEM instructional 

pathways that lead to a postsecondary 

degree or certification in STEM fields; 

and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Working with SEAs or multiple 

districts to design and implement 

systemic, comprehensive strategies that 

promote college- and career-readiness 

for K–12 students and students’ 

successful transition from high school 

graduation to postsecondary education 

and the workforce. 

(b) Helping SEAs address the systemic 

needs and challenges they and their 

LEAs face in ensuring that all students 

graduate from high school prepared for 

college and careers, particularly in highpoverty, high-minority, urban, and rural 

settings. 

(c) Working with K–12 and 

postsecondary education systems to 

align policies and practices in order to 

improve student transitions from high 

school to postsecondary degree or 

credential programs. 

h. Center on Building State Capacity 

and Productivity. In addition to the 

subject-matter and technical expertise 

outlined for all centers, an applicant for 

the Center on Building State Capacity 

and Productivity must provide evidence 

in its application demonstrating that the 

proposed center staff, including any 

partners and consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) SEA organizational structures that 

are effective in supporting district- and 

school-level implementation of effective 

practices to improve student outcomes; 

(b) The relationship of an SEA to its 

LEAs and the differing resources and 

capacities that exist across LEAs; 

(c) Research-based practices and 

emerging promising practices in using 

LEA support systems in States, such as 

networks of educational service 

agencies and third-party systems of 

support, in order to provide high-quality 

support to districts and schools; and 

(d) Leading research in performance 

and project management, including 

research conducted in non-education 

sectors and industries; and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Working with SEAs to successfully 

implement programs or initiatives 

statewide or in multiple districts. 

(b) Providing in-depth coaching and 

advice to SEA leaders on improving 

internal organizational capacity or the 

capacity to support district- and schoollevel implementation of effective 

practices in order to improve student 

outcomes. 

(c) Facilitating communities of 

practice within and across States. 

(d) Working with large-scale 

organizations, especially public-sector 

organizations that work with multiple 

constituencies and stakeholders, on 

performance and project management. 

i. Center on Innovations in Learning. 

In addition to the subject-matter and 

technical expertise outlined for all 

centers, an applicant for the Center on 

Innovations in Learning must provide 

evidence in its application 

demonstrating that the proposed center 

staff, including any partners and 

consultants, possesses— 

i. Knowledge and understanding of— 

(a) Policies, strategies, and practices 

that encourage the identification and 

scaling up of new teaching and learning 

strategies, approaches, processes, or 

tools that significantly improve, or have 

the potential to significantly improve, 

student outcomes; and 

(b) Policies, strategies, and practices 

that encourage improved student 

outcomes through personalization of 

learning and through implementing 

technologies that support the 

personalization of learning; and 

ii. Experience in the following: 

(a) Working with SEAs on identifying 

and implementing policies, strategies, 

and practices that encourage the 

identification and scaling up of new 

teaching and learning strategies, 

approaches, processes, or tools that 

significantly improve, or have the 

potential to significantly improve, 

student outcomes. 

(b) Working with SEAs or LEAs on 

identifying and implementing policies, 

strategies, and practices that encourage 

improved student outcomes through 

personalization of learning, including 

selecting or developing and 

implementing technologies that support 

personalized learning. 

3. Management Plan 

An applicant must submit a 

management plan that describes the 

responsibilities of key personnel, 

timelines, and milestones for 

accomplishing project tasks; the time 

commitment of key personnel; and the 

adequacy and allocation of resources, 

including financial or in-kind matching 

contributions from an entity or 

organization in the public or private 

sector, if any. If an applicant’s proposed 

budget includes matching contributions, 

the application must include evidence 

of a commitment for the full amount of 

the matching contribution, inclusive of 

the source of the funds or in-kind 

contributions and the date(s) they will 

be received. 

4. Evaluation Plan 

Each applicant must provide a plan to 

engage a third-party provider to assess 

the progress and performance of the 

center in meeting the educational and 

capacity-building needs of SEAs. The 

plan must identify performance 

objectives the project intends to achieve 

and performance measures for each 

performance objective; explain the 

quantitative and qualitative methods 

that will be used to collect, analyze, and 

report performance data; and describe 

the methods that will be used to 

monitor progress and make mid-course 

corrections as needed. Each center must 

also provide a plan to collect and use 

reliable formative and summative data 

throughout the grant period to inform 

and improve service delivery. 

IV. Proposed Flexibility and 

Requirements for Regional Assignments 

Background. Currently, the 

Department funds 16 Regional Centers 

that serve States within defined 

geographic boundaries. In order to 

implement customer-centered, 

performance-focused technical 

assistance across the Regional Centers 

and provide States with the opportunity 

to create a demand-driven market for 

services, the Assistant Secretary is 

considering modifying the regional 

structure of the Comprehensive Centers 

to allow States greater choice about the 

Regional Centers with which they 

affiliate. Modifying the current structure 

would allow an SEA to seek services 

from the Regional Center that it believes 

will best meet its needs, regardless of its 

geographic location, and strengthen the 

incentives for Regional Centers to 

provide relevant and high-quality 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3251 

technical assistance. However, 

modifying the current structure could 

make planning and staffing of Regional 

Centers difficult (e.g., because of 

uncertainty regarding a center’s level of 

funding) and lead to gaps in service as 

a State transitions to a new Regional 

Center. It could also deter collaboration 

among Regional Centers, which might 

adversely affect the quality of technical 

assistance provided. 

Given the potential advantages and 

disadvantages of providing such an 

option for States, the Department is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments on the following proposed 

requirements. 

Proposed requirements. Under the 

proposed modified structure, in the 

second fiscal year of the cooperative 

agreement, and in each subsequent 

fiscal year, an SEA could indicate to the 

Department its desire to affiliate with a 

different Regional Center, regardless of 

the geographic location of that Center. A 

State could exercise this option only 

once in any two-year period. 

To exercise this option, a State would 

notify the Department in writing, not 

later than 60 days prior to the end of the 

fiscal year, that it wishes to affiliate 

with a different Regional Center. The 

State would provide— 

A. Documentation from the proposed 

Regional Center with which it wants to 

affiliate that indicates the Center’s 

willingness and capacity to serve the 

additional State; and 

B. Other information that the 

Department requests. 

After considering the documentation 

and other information, the Department 

could approve a request if it is 

consistent with the requirements in 

section 203(a) of ETAA that (1) there be 

no fewer than 20 Comprehensive 

Centers and that (2) there be at least one 

Comprehensive Center in each of the 10 

geographic regions served by the RELs. 

If the Department approves the request, 

the Department would re-designate 

regions served by each Regional Center 

to reflect any changes in regional 

membership. The Department would reallocate the funding to each center, 

taking into account changes in the 

number of students served by each 

Regional Center and other such factors 

it deems appropriate. The Department 

would provide notification of any 

changes through a notice published in 

the Federal Register. 

V. Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background: In any competition 

under this program, the Secretary 

proposes to use one or more of the 

selection criteria proposed in this 

notice, any of the selection criteria in 34 

CFR 75.210, criteria based on the 

statutory requirements for the 

Comprehensive Centers program in 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, or any 

combination of these. This includes the 

authority to reduce the number of 

selection criteria. 

The Secretary may apply one or more 

of these criteria in any year in which 

this program is in effect. The Secretary 

may also select one or more of these 

selection criteria to review preapplications, if the Secretary decides to 

invite pre-applications in accordance 

with 34 CFR 75.103. In the notice 

inviting applications, the application 

package, or both, we will announce the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: We 

propose to use the following selection 

criteria to evaluate applications under 

this program. 

A. Technical Assistance Plan 

1. Overall quality of the technical 

assistance plan. In determining the 

overall quality of the technical 

assistance plan for the proposed center 

and the likelihood of the center 

contributing to improved State 

outcomes, the Secretary considers— 

a. The extent to which the proposed 

technical assistance plan presents an 

exceptional approach that will likely 

result in building SEA capacity to 

implement State-level initiatives and 

support district- and school-level 

initiatives that improve educational 

outcomes for all students, close 

achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction; 

b. The potential contribution of the 

center to increasing the knowledge and 

understanding of effective strategies in 

the center’s area of expertise; and 

c. The extent to which the proposed 

technical assistance plan presents an 

approach that will result in the sharing 

of high-quality, relevant, useful 

information, materials, and other 

applicable resources across SEAs, 

districts, and schools, within and 

outside of a region. 

2. Quality of the Project Design. In 

determining the quality of the project 

design of the proposed center for which 

the applicant is applying, the Secretary 

considers— 

a. The extent to which the applicant’s 

technical assistance plan proposes an 

exceptional approach to meeting the 

requirements for all centers, which 

includes— 

i. Providing high-quality technical 

assistance that is based on up-to-date 

knowledge and understanding of 

research-based practices and emerging 

promising practices; is highly relevant 

and useful to SEAs, LEAs, and school 

policymakers and practitioners; and is 

delivered in a timely, cost-efficient 

manner; 

ii. Focusing technical assistance on 

helping SEAs build capacity to 

implement State-level initiatives and 

support district- and school-level 

initiatives that improve educational 

outcomes for all students, close 

achievement gaps, and improve the 

quality of instruction; and 

iii. Coordinating and collaborating 

with national experts and technical 

assistance providers to ensure that the 

technical assistance is informed by 

leading-edge research and innovative 

approaches and avoids duplicating 

efforts; 

b. In the case of an applicant for a 

Regional Center, the extent to which the 

applicant’s technical assistance plan 

proposes an exceptional approach to 

meeting the requirements for all 

Regional Centers; and 

c. In the case of an applicant for a 

Content Center, the extent to which the 

applicant’s technical assistance plan 

proposes an exceptional approach to 

meeting the requirements for all Content 

Centers, as well as the requirements for 

the specific Content Center for which 

the applicant is applying. 

3. Knowledge of State Technical 

Assistance Needs. In determining the 

applicant’s ability to meet State 

technical assistance needs, the Secretary 

considers the extent to which the 

proposed technical assistance plan 

provides strategies that address the 

technical assistance needs of States in 

key areas, as evidenced by in-depth 

knowledge and understanding of— 

a. For Regional Centers, the specific 

educational goals and priorities of the 

States to be served by the applicant, 

including emerging priorities based on 

State-led reform efforts; 

b. For Regional Centers, the 

applicable State and regional 

demographics, policy contexts, and 

other factors and their relevance to 

improving student outcomes, closing 

achievement gaps, and improving 

instruction; and 

c. For Content Centers, State technical 

assistance needs, and research-based 

practices and emerging promising 

practices related to the Content Center 

for which the applicant is applying. 

B. Subject-Matter and Technical 

Expertise 

Quality of Key Project Personnel. In 

determining the subject-matter and 

technical expertise of key project 

personnel, the Secretary considers the 

extent to which the applicant 

encourages applications for employment 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability. In addition, the Secretary 

considers— 

1. The knowledge, understanding, and 

experience of key project personnel as 

outlined under subject-matter and 

technical expertise requirements for all 

centers; 

2. In the case of an applicant for a 

Regional Center, in addition to the 

knowledge, understanding, and 

experience outlined under subjectmatter and technical expertise 

requirements for all centers, the subjectmatter and technical expertise of key 

personnel outlined under the 

requirements for Regional Centers; 

3. In the case of an applicant for a 

Content Center, in addition to the 

knowledge, understanding, and 

experience outlined under subjectmatter and technical expertise 

requirements for all centers, the subjectmatter and technical expertise of key 

personnel outlined under the 

requirements for the specific Content 

Center for which the applicant is 

applying; 

4. The extent to which the applicant 

has demonstrated experience providing 

high-quality technical assistance to 

SEAs or multiple districts; 

5. The extent to which the applicant 

has demonstrated the ability to develop 

ongoing partnerships with leading 

experts and organizations nationwide 

that inform high-quality technical 

assistance and subject-matter expertise; 

6. The extent to which the applicant 

has prior relevant experience operating 

a project of the scope required for the 

purposes of the center being proposed; 

and 

7. The extent to which the applicant 

proposes an advisory board membership 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the ETAA and includes reasonable 

assurance of proposed board members’ 

commitment to serve. 

C. Management and Evaluation Plans 

1. Quality of the Management Plan 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan for the proposed 

center, the Secretary considers— 

a. The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

project on time and within budget, 

including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks; 

b. The extent to which the time 

commitments of the project director and 

other key project personnel, including 

any partners or consultants, are 

appropriate and adequate to meet the 

objectives of the proposed project; 

c. The extent to which resources are 

allocated within a region for Regional 

Centers, and across regions for Content 

Centers, in a manner that reflects the 

need for technical assistance; and 

d. The adequacy of the resources for 

the proposed project, including whether 

the applicant proposes facilities and 

equipment to successfully carry out the 

purposes and activities of the proposed 

center. 

2. Quality of the Project Evaluation Plan 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation plan, the Secretary 

considers— 

a. The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates a strong capacity to 

provide reliable formative and 

summative data on performance 

measures; 

b. The extent to which the 

performance goals and objectives for the 

project are clearly specified and 

measurable in terms of the project 

activities to be accomplished and their 

stated outcomes; 

c. The extent to which the methods 

for monitoring performance and 

evaluating the effectiveness of project 

strategies in terms of outcomes for 

SEAs, districts, and schools are 

thorough, feasible, and appropriate to 

the objectives and outcomes of the 

proposed project; 

d. The extent to which the methods of 

evaluation will provide continuous 

performance feedback and encourage 

the continuous assessment of progress 

toward achieving intended outcomes; 

and 

e. The extent to which the applicant 

has a high-quality plan to use both 

formative and summative data from 

evaluations to inform and improve 

service delivery over the course of the 

grant. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, and 

Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria in a 

notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priorities, 

requirements, 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 proposed 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

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 set forth in 

the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the Executive Order, it 

has been determined that this regulatory 

action is significant and subject to OMB 

review under section 3(f)(4) of the 

Executive order. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account— among other 

things and to the extent practicable—the 

costs of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3253 

(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, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that these regulations are 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action: 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria are 

needed to implement the 

Comprehensive Centers program 

because the authorizing language in the 

ETAA provides only broad parameters 

to govern the program. The Department 

does not believe that the statute, by 

itself, provides a sufficient level of 

detail to ensure that all States can build 

their capacity to improve educational 

outcomes for all students. The priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice would clarify 

the types of centers the Department 

seeks to fund and permit the 

Department to evaluate proposed 

centers using selection criteria that are 

based on the purpose of the program 

and are closely aligned with the 

Department’s priorities. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for the Comprehensive Centers 

program, the Department would use the 

general selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210 of the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations in 

selecting grant recipients. However, the 

Department does not believe the use of 

those general criteria would be 

sufficient for a Comprehensive Centers 

program competition because they do 

not focus specifically on the objectives 

of the program, especially the role of the 

centers in providing technical assistance 

to States so that they can build their 

capacity to assist LEAs and schools and, 

in turn, improve educational outcomes 

for students. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered: 

The Department considered a variety 

of possible priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria before deciding to 

propose those included in this notice. 

For example, the Department 

considered a priority to support 

knowledge management and 

dissemination across all Comprehensive 

Centers. It chose instead to propose 

requiring each center to collaborate with 

other Department-funded centers 

engaged in that type of activity. 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

reflect and promote the purpose of the 

Comprehensive Centers program. They 

also align the program, where possible 

and permissible, with other Presidential 

and Departmental priorities. We believe 

that the proposals in this notice 

appropriately balance the need for 

specific programmatic guidance while 

providing each applicant with flexibility 

to design and propose an innovative and 

effective Comprehensive Center. We 

seek public comment on whether we 

have achieved an acceptable balance. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits: 

The Department believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria would not impose 

significant costs on eligible research 

organizations, institutions, agencies, 

institutions of higher education, or 

partnerships among such entities, or 

individuals that would receive 

assistance through the Comprehensive 

Centers program. We also believe that 

the benefits of implementing the 

proposals contained in this notice 

justify any associated costs. 

The Department believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria would result in the 

selection of high-quality applications to 

establish centers that are most likely to 

build the capacity of SEAs in order to 

improve educational outcomes for all 

students. Through the regulatory action 

proposed in this notice, we seek to 

provide clarity as to the scope of 

activities we expect to support with 

program funds and the expected burden 

of work involved in preparing an 

application and implementing a center 

under the program. A potential 

applicant would need to consider 

carefully the effort that would be 

required to prepare a strong application 

and its capacity to implement a project 

successfully. 

The Department further believes that 

the costs imposed on an applicant by 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

and selection criteria would be largely 

limited to paperwork burden related to 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits of preparing an application and 

receiving an award would justify any 

costs incurred by the applicant. This is 

because, during the project period, the 

costs of actually establishing a center 

and carrying out activities under a 

Comprehensive Centers program grant 

would be paid for with program funds 

and any matching funds. Thus, the costs 

of establishing a Comprehensive Center 

using these proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

would not be a significant burden for 

any eligible applicant, including a small 

entity. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Accounting Statement: 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http://www.Whithouse.gov/ 

omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the 

following table, we have prepared an 

accounting statement showing the 

classification of the expenditures 

associated with the provisions of this 

proposed regulatory action. This table 

provides our best estimate of the Federal 

payments to be made to eligible 

applicants under this program as a 

result of this proposed regulatory action. 

This table is based on funds the 

Department has requested for new 

awards for this program for FY 2012. 

The actual level of funding, if any, 

depends on final congressional action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to those entities listed. 

Accounting Statement Classification 

of Estimated Expenditures: 

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$51.2 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to research organizations, institutions, 

agencies, institutions of higher education, or partnerships among such 

entities, or individuals. 

Effect on Other Levels of Government: 

We have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, or tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation process to 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 

provide the 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 176 hours 

of staff time to address the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria; prepare the application; and 

obtain necessary clearances. Based on 

the number of applications the 

Department received in the last 

competition it held under this program 

(in FY 2005), we expect to receive 

approximately 65 applications for these 

funds. The total number of hours for all 

expected applicants is an estimated 

11,440 hours. We estimate the total cost 

per hour of the applicant-level staff who 

will carry out this work to be $57 per 

hour. The total estimated cost for all 

applicants would be $652,080. 

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 in the Education Department 

Information Collection System (EDICS) 

at http://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on 

Browse Pending Collections. In EDICS 

this proposed collection is identified as 

04785. This ICR is also available on 

OMB’s RegInfo Web site at 

www.reginfo.gov. 

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, 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. 

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 may affect are eligible 

research organizations, institutions, 

agencies, institutions of higher 

education, or partnerships among such 

entities, or individuals. The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the proposed priorities, 

requirements, 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 the applicant. 

Participation in the Comprehensive 

Centers program is voluntary. For this 

reason, the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

would impose no burden on small 

entities unless they applied for funding 

under the Comprehensive Centers 

program using the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice. We expect that 

in determining whether to apply for 

Comprehensive Center funds, an eligible 

entity would evaluate the requirements 

of preparing an application and 

implementing a Comprehensive Center, 

and any associated costs, and weigh 

them against the benefits likely to be 

achieved by implementing a center. An 

eligible entity would probably apply 

only if it determines that the likely 

benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 

application and implementing a project. 

The likely benefits of applying for a 

Comprehensive Center program grant 

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 such 

application to create partnerships with 

other entities in order to assist State 

educational agencies. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Size Standards 

define ‘‘small entities’’ as 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. 

The Secretary believes that the 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice do not 

impose any additional burden on a 

small entity applying for a grant than 

the entity 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 proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

Further, this proposed regulatory 

action may help a small entity 

determine whether it has the interest, 

need, or capacity to implement 

activities under the program and, thus, 

prevent a small entity that does not have 

such an interest, need, or capacity from 

absorbing the burden of applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. The 

Secretary invites comments from small 

eligible entities 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. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Notices 3255 

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 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 

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: January 18, 2012. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1247 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of 229 Boundary Revision at the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Notices concerning 

unauthorized entry into or upon areas, 

buildings, and other facilities of the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 

located in McCracken County, KY, 

published at (30 FR 13287, October 19, 

1965 and at 45 FR 30106, May 7, 1980) 

are amended by substitution of the 

following descriptive language for the 

entirety of the former descriptions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given, by the Department of 

Energy, pursuant to Section 229 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and as implemented by 10 CFR Part 860, 

and by Section 705(a) of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act, that 

unauthorized entry, as provided in 10 

CFR 860.3, and the unauthorized 

introduction of dangerous weapons, 

explosives, or dangerous materials or 

dangerous instruments likely to produce 

substantial injury or damage to persons 

or property, as provided in 10 CFR 

860.4, into or upon this facility, 

installation, or real property of the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

located in McCracken County, 

Kentucky, as more fully described 

below, is prohibited by the United 

States Department of Energy. The areas 

subject to the above described 

prohibitions are more particularly 

described as follows: 

1. The Department of Energy 

installation known as the Paducah 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant located in 

McCracken County, KY, approximately 

6,000 feet North of Woodville Road 

(State Route 725) and approximately 

6,300 feet West of Metropolis Lake 

Road. The primary security interest 

area, including a buffer area, totals 

approximately 1,342 acres with 

boundary coordinates as follows: 

Longitude Latitude 

1. 88.82566308 37.08885001 

2. 88.81798343 37.10599209 

3. 88.82655474 37.10845764 

4. 88.82809126 37.11325409 

5. 88.82809126 37.11676083 

6. 88.82374798 37.11646865 

7. 88.81993743 37.12479987 

8. 88.80973832 37.12183780 

9. 88.80839907 37.12475971 

10. 88.80727527 37.12206995 

11. 88.80472524 37.12163638 

12. 88.79639904 37.11904332 

13. 88.80358172 37.10300759 

14. 88.80657162 37.09992874 

15. 88.81123139 37.09860962 

16. 88.82008684 37.09825329 

17. 88.82436407 37.08842103 

2. The Department of Energy landfill 

installation located North of Item 1 

above and consisting of approximately 

106 acres enclosed by a chain-link fence 

with boundary coordinates as follows: 

Longitude Latitude 

1. 88.80235649 37.12538578 

2. 88.79890091 37.13329589 

3. 88.79333779 37.13168788 

4. 88.79527431 37.12805870 

5. 88.79601369 37.12826426 

6. 88.79756107 37.12494008 

7. 88.79855316 37.12421613 

Issued in Paducah, Kentucky on January 

12, 2012. 

William E. Murphie, 

Manager, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1214 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Acquisition of a Natural Gas 

Pipeline and Natural Gas Utility Service 

at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA, and 

Notice of Floodplains and Wetlands 

Involvement (DOE/EIS–0467) 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and Notice of Floodplains and Wetlands 

Involvement. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) announces its intent to prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Acquisition of a Natural Gas 

Pipeline and Natural Gas Utility Service 

at the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington (Natural Gas Pipeline or 

NGP EIS), and initiate a 30-day public 

scoping period. DOE will prepare the 

NGP EIS in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations that 

implement NEPA and DOE 

implementing procedures. DOE is 

inviting public comment on the 

proposed scope of the NGP EIS, 

including the alternatives and 

environmental issues to be evaluated. 

DOE proposes to make natural gas 

available to facilities located on the 

Central Plateau of its Hanford Site near 

Richland, Washington, to help meet its 

objectives to reduce fuel costs, 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 

dependence on foreign fuel sources. 

Because natural gas is not currently 

available on the Central Plateau of the 

Site, this action would involve entering 

into a contract with a licensed natural 

gas utility supplier to construct, operate, 

and maintain a natural gas pipeline and 

deliver natural gas utility service to 

DOE. 

The proposed pipeline would begin 

from a new interconnect tap on the 

existing Williams Northwest Pipe 

transmission line in Franklin County, 

north of the Pasco, Washington, airport, 

and then run westerly across non-DOE 

lands and under the Columbia River 

onto the Hanford Site 300 Area, before 

turning northwest and paralleling Route 

4S. The pipeline would terminate at 

facilities in the 200 East Area of the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES