59074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Services, Central Intelligence Agency, 

Washington, DC 20505, or fax to (703) 

613–3020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph W. Lambert, (703) 613–1379. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent 

with the Privacy Act (PA), the CIA has 

undertaken and completed a review of 

its public PA regulations. As a result of 

this review, the Agency proposes to 

revise its PA regulations to update the 

title of the head of the CIA and to 

streamline the appeals structure. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 1901 

Classified information, Privacy Act. 

As stated in the preamble, the CIA 

proposes to amend 32 CFR part 1901 as 

follows: 

PART 1901—PUBLIC RIGHTS UNDER 

THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 

1. The authority citation for part 1901 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: National Security Act of 1947, 

as amended; Central Intelligence Agency Act 

of 1949, as amended; Privacy Act, as 

amended. 

2. Amend § 1901.02, by adding 

paragraphs (o) and (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1901.02 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(o) Director of Central Intelligence 

Agency means the head of the Central 

Intelligence Agency. 

(p) Agency Release Panel (ARP) refers 

to the Agency’s forum for reviewing 

information review and release policy, 

the adequacy of resources available to 

all Agency declassification and release 

programs, and hearing appeals in 

accordance with this section. 

§ 1901.41 [Amended] 

3. Revise § 1901.41 to read as follows: 

§ 1901.41 Designation of authority to hear 

appeals. 

(a) Agency Release Panel (ARP). 

Appeals of initial adverse decisions 

under the Privacy Act shall be reviewed 

by the ARP which shall issue the final 

Agency decision. 

(b) ARP Membership. The ARP is 

chaired by the Chief, Information 

Review and Release Group, Information 

Management Services, and composed of 

the Information Review Officers from 

the various Directorates and the 

Director, Central Intelligence Agency 

(D/CIA) areas, as well as the 

representatives of the various release 

programs and offices. The Information 

and Privacy Coordinator also serves as 

Executive Secretary of the ARP. 

4. In § 1901.42, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1901.42 Right of appeal and appeal 

procedures. 

* * * * * 

(d) Receipt, recording, and tasking. 

The Agency shall promptly record each 

administrative appeal, acknowledge 

receipt to the requester in writing, and 

thereafter affect the necessary taskings 

to the Director(s) in charge of the 

directorate(s) which originated or has an 

interest in the record(s) subject to the 

appeal. As used herein, the term 

Director in charge of a directorate 

includes an equivalent senior official 

within the D/CIA area, as well as a 

designee known as the Information 

Review Officer for a directorate or area. 

§ 1901.43 [Removed and Reserved] 

5. Remove and reserve § 1901.43 

6. In § 1901.44, revise paragraph (b) 

and remove and reserve paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1901.44 Action by appeals authority. 

* * * * * 

(b) Decision. The Agency Review 

Panel (ARP) shall meet on a regular 

schedule and may take action when a 

simple majority of the total membership 

is present. In all cases of a divided vote, 

before the decision of the ARP becomes 

final, any member of the ARP may by 

written memorandum to the Executive 

Secretary of the ARP, refer such matters 

to the Director, Information 

Management Services (D/IMS) for 

decision. In the event of a disagreement 

with any decision by D/IMS, Directorate 

heads may appeal to the Associate 

Deputy Director, CIA (ADD) for 

resolution. The final Agency decision 

shall reflect the vote of the ARP, unless 

changed by the D/IMS or the ADD. 

§ 1901.45 [Amended] 

7. In § 1901.45, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1901.45 Notification of decision and right 

of judicial review. 

(a) In general. The Executive 

Secretary of the Agency Review Panel 

shall promptly prepare and 

communicate the final Agency decision 

to the requester. With respect to any 

decision to deny a request, that 

correspondence shall state the reasons 

for the decision and include a notice of 

a right to seek judicial review. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 10, 2011. 

Joseph W. Lambert, 

Director, Information Management Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21575 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6310–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OS–0005] 

RIN 1894–AA02 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Program and Discretionary and Other 

Formula Grant Programs 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed revisions to 

certain data collection and reporting 

requirements, and proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) established requirements for 

the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(SFSF) program in a notice of final 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria published in the Federal 

Register on November 12, 2009 

(November 2009 Notice). In this notice, 

the Secretary proposes to revise some of 

those requirements. In a separate notice 

of interim final requirement, the 

Secretary is extending to January 31, 

2012, the deadline by which a State 

must collect and publicly report data 

and information under the SFSF 

program. 

In addition, the Secretary proposes in 

this notice to establish a priority that the 

U.S. Department of Education 

(Department) may use, as appropriate, 

in any future discretionary grant 

competitions. The Department would 

give a priority to States that have 

developed and implemented the 

statewide longitudinal data system 

(SLDS) required under SFSF Indicator 

(b)(1) on or before the applicable 

deadline. 

Through this notice, we also remind 

grantees that under its current authority, 

the Department may identify grantees as 

high risk and impose sanctions on them 

for failing to meet programmatic 

requirements. In addition, the 

Department is proposing that it may 

take enforcement action against a State 

educational agency (SEA) under certain 

circumstances where a State fails to 

meet the requirements of Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before October 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund—Proposed 

Revisions’’ at the top of your comments. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59075 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

revisions to certain data collection and 

reporting requirements and proposed 

priority, address them to Office of the 

Deputy Secretary (Attention: State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund Proposed 

Revisions Comments), U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., room 7E214, Washington, DC 

20202–6200. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler, State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Program, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., 

room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202– 

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

e-mail: SFSFcomments@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final revisions to certain data 

collection and reporting requirements, 

and final priority, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposal 

that each comment addresses. 

We invite you also to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and Executive Order 13563 and their 

overall requirements of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed revisions to certain data 

collection and reporting requirements 

and proposed priority. Please suggest 

further ways we could reduce potential 

costs or increase potential benefits 

while preserving the effective and 

efficient administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the public comments in person in room 

7E214, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4 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 SFSF 

program provided approximately $48.6 

billion in formula grants to States to 

help stabilize State and local budgets in 

order to minimize and avoid reductions 

in education and other essential 

services, in exchange for a State’s 

commitment to advance education 

reform in four key areas: (1) Achieving 

equity in the distribution of teachers; (2) 

improving the collection and use of 

data; (3) standards and assessments; and 

(4) supporting struggling schools. 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, 

Title XIV—State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 

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

Proposed Revisions to Reporting 

Requirements 

Background 

Section 14005(d) of Division A of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a State 

receiving funds under the SFSF program 

to provide assurances in four key areas 

of education reform: (1) Achieving 

equity in teacher distribution; (2) 

improving collection and use of data; (3) 

standards and assessments; and (4) 

supporting struggling schools. In the 

November 2009 Notice (74 FR 58436), 

we established specific data and 

information requirements (assurance 

indicators and descriptors) that a State 

must meet with respect to the statutory 

assurances. We also established specific 

requirements for the plans that a State 

had to submit as part of its application 

for the second phase of funding under 

the SFSF program, describing the steps 

it would take to collect and publicly 

report the required data and other 

information. As we explained in the 

November 2009 Notice, these two sets of 

requirements provide transparency on 

the extent to which a State is 

implementing the actions for which it 

provided the assurances. Increased 

access to and focus on these data better 

enable States and other stakeholders to 

identify strengths and weaknesses in 

education systems and to determine 

where concentrated reform effort is 

warranted. 

We are taking this action in response 

to the January 18, 2011 Executive Order 

13563 entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ and the 

February 28, 2011 Memorandum from 

the President to executive departments 

and agencies entitled ‘‘Administrative 

Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better 

Results for State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments.’’ These documents direct 

each Federal executive department and 

agency to review periodically its 

existing significant regulations in order 

to determine whether any of those 

regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 

as to make the department’s or agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or 

less burdensome in achieving regulatory 

objectives. These proposed 

modifications would address concerns 

raised by some States regarding their 

capacity to meet the requirements in the 

November 2009 Notice. 

As a result of a regulatory review of 

the SFSF program requirements, the 

Secretary is publishing elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register an IFR that 

extends to January 31, 2012 the deadline 

for States to collect and publicly report 

data and information under the 

program. In addition, in this notice, the 

Secretary proposes to: (1) Eliminate the 

requirement for States to report data 

annually for Indicators (c)(1) through 

(c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6); (2) 

extend to December 31, 2012, upon 

submission of an approvable request by 

a State, the deadline for meeting the 

requirements under Indicators (b)(1) and 

(c)(12); (3) extend to December 31, 2012, 

upon submission of an approvable 

request by a State, the deadline for 

publicly reporting or developing the 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

student enrollment data under Indicator 

(c)(11) for high school graduates who 

enroll in an in-State public institution of 

higher education (IHE); and (4) apply an 

alternative standard, upon submission 

of an approvable request by a State, by 

which a State may meet the Indicator 

(c)(11) data collection and reporting 

requirements for high school graduates 

who enroll in private or out-of-State 

public IHEs. The Secretary proposes to 

establish December 31, 2012 as the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Specifically, Indicator (c)(12) requires each State 

to provide for the State, for each LEA in the State, 

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

these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with 

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

students who graduate from high school consistent 

with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in a public 

IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher 

Education Act) in the State within 16 months of 

receiving a regular high school diploma, the 

number and percentage (including numerator and 

denominator) who complete at least one year’s 

worth of college credit (applicable to a degree) 

within two years of enrollment in the IHE. 

deadline by which a State must meet the 

requirements of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. 

In addition to these revisions, the 

Secretary proposes to establish a 

priority that the Department may use in 

future discretionary grant competitions, 

for States that have met the 

requirements of Indicator (b)(1) on or 

before the applicable deadline. The 

Secretary also is reminding States of 

possible sanctions that may be imposed 

on them for failing to meet SFSF 

collection and reporting requirements. 

Further, the Secretary is proposing to 

have the authority to extend those 

sanctions to SEAs in States that have 

received an extension of the deadline to 

December 31, 2012 for Indicators (b)(1), 

(c)(11), or (c)(12) but fail to meet the 

revised deadline or that have received 

permission to use the alternative 

standard for Indicator (c)(11) but fail to 

meet the requirements of that standard 

by the deadline. 

We note that other than the revised 

January 31, 2012 deadline for collecting 

and publicly reporting data that has 

been established in the IFR, or unless 

specifically referenced in this notice, we 

are not proposing to modify any other 

SFSF requirements and those 

requirements remain in effect as 

originally established. 

In addition, we note that where the 

SFSF indicators make use of 

information in ‘‘Existing Collections’’ 

(see column 4 of the table in Section I 

of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund: 

Summary of Final Requirements at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

statestabilization/summaryrequirements.doc), the modification of 

an SFSF indicator does not affect other 

Federal requirements for those 

collections that are established under 

separate legal authority. Some of the 

data that States submit through the 

Department’s EDFacts system to meet 

requirements established under other 

authorities (e.g., Title I accountability 

data) are also reported publicly by 

States to meet the requirements of 

certain SFSF indicators. Those 

requirements established by other 

authorities are not affected by the 

modification of any SFSF indicator. 

Proposed Revisions 

Proposed Elimination of Annual 

Reporting Requirements for Indicators 

(c)(1) Through (c)(9) and (d)(1) Through 

(d)(6) 

Currently, each State is required to 

collect and publicly report, at least 

annually, the data and other information 

required by Indicators (c)(1) through 

(c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6). 

Indicators (c)(1) through (c)(9) 

(standards and assessments indicators) 

require each State to collect and 

publicly report data and other 

information annually on, among other 

things, whether students are provided 

high-quality State assessments; whether 

students with disabilities and limited 

English proficient students are included 

in State assessment systems; and 

whether the State makes information 

available regarding student academic 

performance in the State compared to 

the academic performance of students in 

other States. 

Indicators (d)(1) through (d)(6) 

(supporting struggling schools 

indicators) require a State to collect and 

publicly report data and other 

information annually on, among other 

things, the progress of certain groups of 

schools in the State on State 

assessments in reading/language arts 

and mathematics and on the extent to 

which reforms to improve student 

academic achievement are implemented 

in the persistently lowest-achieving 

schools in the State. 

A majority of States have collected 

and publicly reported the data and 

information required by Indicators (c)(1) 

through (c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6). 

The data and information highlight the 

progress each State is making to address 

potential inequities in standards and 

assessments and to inform the public on 

the extent to which reforms to improve 

student academic achievement are 

implemented in the persistently lowestachieving schools in the State. However, 

much of these data are now also 

collected through other Department 

information collections. For example, 

data on the participation of students 

with disabilities, by assessment type, is 

provided by States as part of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) Consolidated State 

Performance Report (CSPR) and the 

annual assessment data reporting under 

the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. The CSPRs are available 

at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/ 

account/consolidated/sy08-09part1/ 

index.html. Data are also available to the 

public about the participation of 

students with disabilities by assessment 

type at https://www.ideadata.org/ 

PartBData.asp. In addition, data about 

the performance of students on 

statewide assessments, by subgroup 

(including students with disabilities and 

limited English proficient students), are 

publicly available at http:// 

www.eddataexpress.ed.gov/. 

Under the IFR, States have until 

January 31, 2012, to collect and publicly 

report the data and information required 

under the SFSF indicators and 

descriptors, including Indicators (c)(1) 

through (c)(9) and (d)(1) through (d)(6). 

However, given the availability of these 

data through other sources, we do not 

believe it continues to be necessary to 

have States separately collect and report 

data for Indicators (c)(1) through (c)(9) 

and Indicators (d)(1) through (d)(6) more 

than one time under the SFSF program. 

Any State that has already collected and 

publicly reported these data would not 

be required to take any further actions 

relative to these indicators for the 

purposes of the SFSF program. Any 

State that has not already provided data 

under these Indicators must do so by the 

January 31, 2012 deadline. 

Proposed Extension of Deadline for 

Indicators (b)(1) and (c)(12) 

Indicator (b)(1) requires a State to 

identify which of the 12 elements in 

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

COMPETES Act are included in its 

SLDS. Any State that did not have an 

SLDS that included all 12 elements was 

required to provide the Department, as 

part of its SFSF Phase 2 application, a 

plan for fully developing and 

implementing such a system by 

September 30, 2011. 

Indicator (c)(12) requires each State to 

collect and publicly report course 

completion data for high school 

graduates who enroll in a public IHE in 

the State.1 If, at the time of submission 

of its SFSF Phase 2 application, a State 

lacked the capacity to collect and 

publicly report the specified course 

completion data it had to provide the 

Department with a plan for how it 

would collect and report those data or 

develop the capacity to do so by 

September 30, 2011. 

As the Department noted in its 

November 2009 Notice, timely and 

reliable information from across sectors 

will facilitate program evaluation and 

help determine whether a program is 

improving outcomes for students. Thus, 

it is imperative that States complete the 

development and implementation of an 

SLDS that includes the 12 elements 

required under the America COMPETES 

Act. Further, a State must have an SLDS 

to be able to report the course 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59077 

completion data required under 

Indicator (c)(12) that provides 

information on how effectively schools 

in the State are preparing their students 

for postsecondary education. 

The Department recognizes the 

challenges and competing priorities that 

many States have faced in trying to meet 

the requirements of Indicators (b)(1) and 

(c)(12) by the September 30, 2011 

deadline. During program monitoring, 

States have expressed concerns about 

their ability to fully develop and 

implement an SLDS by the established 

deadline. In addition, many States 

indicated in their March 2011 Amended 

Application for Funding Under the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program that 

they still had not fully incorporated the 

following elements into their SLDS: (1) 

Student-level transcript information, 

including data on courses completed 

and grades earned (Element 9); (2) 

information regarding the extent to 

which students transition successfully 

from secondary school to postsecondary 

education, including whether students 

enroll in remedial coursework (Element 

11); and (3) other information 

determined necessary to address 

alignment and adequate preparation for 

success in postsecondary education 

(Element 12). Further, most States 

reported in their amended SFSF 

application that they do not yet have the 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

the course completion data required 

under Indicator (c)(12). 

As a result, in the IFR, the Department 

is extending to January 31, 2012 the 

deadline by which States must meet the 

requirements of the SFSF indicators and 

descriptors, including Indicators (b)(1) 

and (c)(12). Further, the Department 

proposes in this notice to extend to 

December 31, 2012, upon submission of 

an approvable request by a State, the 

deadline for the development and 

implementation of an SLDS that 

includes the 12 elements included in 

the America COMPETES Act. In 

addition, the Department proposes to 

extend to December 31, 2012, upon 

submission of an approvable request by 

a State, the deadline by which a State 

must have the capacity to collect and 

publicly report the required course 

completion data under Indicator (c)(12). 

The Department proposes that, to be 

approvable, an extension request must 

provide the specific information 

described under the heading Proposed 

Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions to December 31, 2012, of 

Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or Use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

Alternative Standard. 

Proposed Revisions to Requirements 

Under Indicator (c)(11) 

Under the requirements for Indicator 

(c)(11) established in the November 

2009 Notice, each State must (1) Collect 

and publicly report, by September 30, 

2011, data on the number and 

percentage of high school graduates who 

enroll in IHEs—public or private, inState or out-of-State; or (2) submit to the 

Department a plan describing how the 

State would develop, by September 30, 

2011, the capacity to do so. Further, 

under those requirements, each State 

must submit to the Department, by 

September 30, 2011, evidence 

demonstrating that it has developed the 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

the data. 

A number of States have raised 

concerns about the challenges in 

collecting and publicly reporting 

student enrollment data. In their March 

2011 SFSF amended applications, 43 

States indicated that they did not yet 

have the capacity to collect and publicly 

report those data. Therefore, in the IFR, 

the Department is extending until 

January 31, 2012, the deadline for States 

to comply with the SFSF indicators and 

descriptors, including Indicator (c)(11). 

Further, in this notice the Department 

proposes to extend to December 31, 

2012, upon submission of an approvable 

request by a State, the deadline by 

which a State must collect and publicly 

report or have the capacity to collect 

and publicly report the student 

enrollment data required under 

Indicator (c)(11) for high school 

graduates who attend an in-State public 

IHE. The Department would grant an 

extension to December 31, 2012 only to 

a State that submits a request that 

contains the specific information 

proposed under the heading Proposed 

Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions to December 31, 2012, of 

Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or Use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

Alternative Standard. 

The Department acknowledges that 

obtaining student enrollment data from 

private and out-of-State public IHEs can 

be particularly challenging. Therefore, 

the Department also proposes to 

establish an alternative standard by 

which a State may meet the Indicator 

(c)(11) data collection and reporting 

requirements with respect to high 

school graduates who enroll in private 

or out-of-State public IHEs. While such 

data are essential in determining how 

well an LEA or secondary school is 

preparing its students for postsecondary 

education, some States may need 

additional time to develop fully the 

capacity to collect and report these data. 

Under the alternative standard, a State 

would have to increase, by December 

31, 2012, its current capacity to collect 

and publicly report the required student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who attend a private or an 

out-of-State public IHE. A State would 

not be required to be fully capable of 

collecting and reporting these data by 

December 31, 2012. For the purposes of 

the alternative standard, a State would 

be considered to be making acceptable 

progress in increasing its capacity to 

collect and publicly report student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who enroll in private or outof-State public IHEs through such 

activities as: (1) Entering into data 

reciprocity agreements with private inState IHEs that receive any State funds, 

including those for student financial 

aid, research, or any other activities; 

(2) entering into data reciprocity 

agreements with private in-State IHEs 

over which the State exercises 

significant oversight, such as serving as 

an accrediting body; (3) entering into 

data reciprocity agreements with 

geographically contiguous States or 

States with which it has tuition 

reciprocity agreements; or (4) 

conducting a data analysis to determine 

the out-of-State IHEs where large 

numbers of the State’s high school 

graduates enroll. 

The Department proposes that States 

that use the alternative standard for 

Indicator (c)(11) be required to publicly 

report, by December 31, 2012, the 

following— 

(1) For each in-State private IHE— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; 

(b) Whether the State has a datasharing agreement in place with the IHE 

and, if so, whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates; and 

(2) For each out-of-State private or 

out-of-State public IHE with which the 

State has a data-sharing agreement— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; and 

(b) Whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates. 

The Department proposes to permit a 

State that provides the specific 

information described under the 

heading Proposed Requirements for 

Requests for Extensions to December 31, 

2012, of Deadlines for Indicator (b)(1), 

(c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) Alternative Standard to use the 

alternative standard. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions to December 31, 2012, of 

Deadlines for Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), 

or (c)(12) or Use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

Alternative Standard 

Because of an SEA’s significant role in 

carrying out education reform activities 

in a State, including developing and 

implementing an SLDS, the Department 

proposes that any request for an 

extension to December 31, 2012, of the 

deadline for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12), as well as any request to use the 

alternative standard for Indicator (c)(11), 

must be submitted jointly by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer. Further, the Secretary proposes 

that an extension request or a request to 

use the alternative standard must be 

submitted by the deadline that the 

Department will establish in the notice 

of final revisions to certain data 

collection and reporting requirements, 

and final priority. The additional 

requirements for these requests are as 

follows: 

A. Indicator (b)(1) Extension Requests 

The Secretary proposes that a State 

must provide the following information 

when requesting an extension of the 

deadline for developing and 

implementing an SLDS under Indicator 

(b)(1) that includes the 12 elements 

required by the America COMPETES 

Act: 

(1) An identification of the elements 

in the America COMPETES Act that the 

State has implemented to date as part of 

its SLDS; and 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i) Incorporate the remaining elements 

into its SLDS by the December 31, 2012, 

deadline; and 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for incorporating those elements by 

the deadline. 

B. Indicator (c)(11) Extension Requests 

The Secretary proposes that a State 

must provide the following information 

when requesting an extension of the 

deadline for collecting and publicly 

reporting under Indicator (c)(11) student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who enroll in an in-State 

public IHE: 

(1) A description of the State’s current 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

such student enrollment data; and 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i)(A) Collect and publicly report by 

December 31, 2012, student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

attend an in-State public IHE; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report those data by 

December 31, 2012; and 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for how the State will— 

(A) Collect and publicly report the 

data by December 31, 2012; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report those data by 

December 31, 2012. 

C. Indicator (c)(12) Extension Requests 

The Secretary proposes that a State 

must provide the following information 

when requesting an extension of the 

deadline for collecting and publicly 

reporting under Indicator (c)(12) course 

completion data for high school 

graduates who enroll in an in-State 

public IHE: 

(1) A description of the State’s current 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

such course completion data; and 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i)(A) Collect and publicly report, by 

December 31, 2012, course completion 

data for high school graduates who 

attend an in-State public IHE; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report, by December 31, 

2012, such data; and 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for how the State will— 

(A) Collect and publicly report the 

data by December 31, 2012; or 

(B) Develop the capacity to collect 

and publicly report such data by 

December 31, 2012. 

D. Indicator (c)(11) Alternative Standard 

Requests 

The Secretary proposes that a State 

must provide the following information 

when requesting permission to use the 

alternative standard to satisfy the 

Indicator (c)(11) requirements to collect 

and publicly report student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

enroll in private or out-of-State public 

IHEs: 

(1) A description of the State’s current 

capacity to collect and publicly report 

such student enrollment data; and 

(2) An assurance signed by the 

Governor and the Chief State School 

Officer that the State will— 

(i)(A) Collect and publicly report, by 

December 31, 2012, student enrollment 

data for high school graduates who 

enroll in private or out-of-State public 

IHEs; or 

(B) Increase its current capacity to 

collect and publicly report such data by 

December 31, 2012, and, by that date, 

publicly report, the following— 

(1) For each in-State private IHE— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; 

(b) Whether the State has a datasharing agreement in place with the IHE 

and, if so, whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates; and 

(2) For each out-of-State private or 

out-of-State public IHE with which the 

State has a data-sharing agreement, 

whether individually or through a State 

agency or consortium— 

(a) Whether the State provides 

funding to the IHE; and 

(b) Whether the data-sharing 

agreement enables the State to track its 

recent high school graduates; 

(ii) Provide, within 60 days of 

submission of the request, a revised 

plan for how the State will— 

(A) Collect and publicly report the 

data by December 31, 2012; or 

(B) Increase its current capacity to 

collect and report those data by 

December 31, 2012. 

Proposed Requirements for Revised 

Plans for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) 

The Department proposes that the 

revised plans for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), 

or (c)(12) must include the following 

information: 

(a) A detailed description of the steps 

that the State will take to ensure that the 

requirements of the indicator will be 

met by December 31, 2012, including a 

reasonable timeline for those actions; 

(b) Identification of the agency or 

agencies in the State responsible for the 

development and implementation of the 

revised plan; and 

(c) An overall budget, including the 

funding sources, that is sufficient to 

support the development and 

implementation of the revised plan. 

Proposed Priority 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

Proposed Priority—Developing and 

Implementing a Statewide Longitudinal 

Data System That Includes the 12 

Required Elements 

Background: A State that develops 

and implements an SLDS that includes 

the 12 elements required under the 

America COMPETES Act is more likely 

to effectively implement education 

reforms. As a result, a State that meets 

the SLDS requirements of the SFSF 

program is more likely to meet the goals 

of other Federal programs that support 

efforts to improve the quality of 

instruction and raise student academic 

achievement. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59079 

2As discussed elsewhere in this notice, the 

regulatory review was conducted in response to the 

January 18, 2011 Executive Order 13563 entitled 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ and 

the February 28, 2011 Memorandum from the 

President to executive departments and agencies 

entitled ‘‘Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, 

and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments.’’ 

Given the importance of full 

implementation of a complete SLDS 

system, the Secretary is proposing a 

priority for a State that has met the 

requirements of Indicator (b)(1) as 

established under the SFSF program. 

Proposed Priority: The Secretary is 

proposing a priority for a State that has 

met the requirements of SFSF Indicator 

(b)(1) on or before the applicable 

deadline. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the 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)). 

Enforcement of SFSF Requirements; 

Proposed Authority To Take 

Enforcement Action Against SEAs 

The Department only extends the 

deadline for complying with program 

requirements when appropriate. The 

Department is proposing to extend the 

deadline under this notice to ensure full 

implementation of key SFSF program 

requirements. For example, the 

development and implementation of an 

SLDS are integral to State and local 

efforts to improve student academic 

achievement. In light of the proposed 

deadline extension, we remind States 

that the Department has a wide range of 

actions that it can take to enforce 

program requirements. For example, the 

Department has the authority under the 

provisions of Part E of the General 

Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 

U.S.C. 1234 et seq.) to take the following 

enforcement actions: the recovery of 

funds (section 452 of GEPA), the 

withholding of funds (section 455 of 

GEPA), or the establishment of a 

compliance agreement (section 457 of 

GEPA). Additionally, under 34 CFR 

80.12, the Department may designate a 

grantee as high risk for a number of 

reasons, including failure to comply 

with the terms and conditions of an 

award. We also note that, under 34 CFR 

75.217, the Department may consider 

the performance of a grantee when 

awarding funds in future discretionary 

grant programs. 

As stated previously, the Department 

proposes that the SEA must jointly 

request with the Office of the Governor 

an extension to December 31, 2012, of 

the January 31, 2012 deadline for 

Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) or 

the authority to use the alternative 

standard for Indicator (c)(11). In those 

cases in which the State has received an 

extension of a deadline to January 31, 

2012 or the authority to use the 

alternative standard for Indicator (c)(11) 

but fails to meet the extended deadline 

or alternative standard, the Department 

also proposes that it may take 

enforcement actions against the SEA, 

including designation as high risk. In 

such instances the Department would 

have the authority also to elect not to 

award funds in a future discretionary 

grant competition to the SEA. 

When implementing enforcement 

actions, the Department takes into 

account the specific circumstances of 

the grantee and the severity of the noncompliance. 

Final Revisions to Certain Data 

Collection and Reporting Requirements 

and Final Priority 

We will announce the final revisions 

to the SFSF requirements and final 

priority in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

revisions to the requirements and the 

final priority after considering any 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice and other information available 

to the Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

revisions to the requirements or 

additional priorities, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use the priority proposed in this notice, we 

invite applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is significant and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

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

12866 defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action likely to result in 

a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an economically 

significant rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that this 

regulatory action is significant under 

paragraph (f)(4) of the Executive order. 

Accordingly, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits—both 

quantitative and qualitative—of this 

proposed regulatory action and 

determined that the benefits justify the 

costs. Additionally, the Department has 

determined that this regulatory action 

would not unduly interfere with State, 

local, and tribal governments in the 

exercise of their governmental 

functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis, we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the regulatory alternatives we 

considered, and the potential costs and 

benefits of the proposed action. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

The proposed revisions in this notice 

are the result of a regulatory review 2 of 

the SFSF requirements established in 

the November 2009 Notice and also a 

response to concerns raised by States 

regarding their capacity to implement 

those requirements fully. The proposed 

revisions would eliminate requirements 

that have been identified through the 

regulatory review as overly burdensome 

or unnecessary for the achievement of 

the intended purposes of the SFSF 

program. The proposed revisions would 

also modify requirements that have been 

identified by certain States as not 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3We have not provided estimates of potential cost 

savings in this notice because we cannot reasonably 

estimate the amount of funds States have already 

spent to meet the applicable SFSF requirements. 

feasible to meet by the currently 

established deadline, by extending the 

deadline for establishing compliance or 

providing an alternative compliance 

standard for States that seek that 

flexibility. The Secretary believes that 

these revisions are needed in order for 

the Department to administer the SFSF 

program in a manner that enables States 

to provide sufficient transparency on 

the extent to which they are 

implementing education reform actions 

consistent with the assurances provided 

in their SFSF applications while 

affording them an appropriate amount 

of time and flexibility to implement 

those actions. The Secretary further 

believes that this notice’s proposed 

requirements for requesting an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or using the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard, as 

well as the proposed requirements for 

revising plans for those indicators, are 

necessary to ensure that States’ actions 

are consistent with the requirements for 

those indicators. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

An alternative to promulgation of the 

proposed revisions in this notice would 

be to take no regulatory action and, 

instead, take enforcement action, such 

as recovering or withholding 

Department funds or establishing 

compliance agreements, against States 

that fail to comply with the relevant 

SFSF requirements established in the 

November 2009 Notice. In general, the 

Secretary believes that the latter 

approach would unfairly punish States 

that the Department believes, based on 

available information on 

implementation of SFSF plans, are 

making a good-faith effort to fully 

develop their statewide longitudinal 

data systems and their capacity to 

collect and report data on student 

postsecondary enrollment and 

persistence, but need more time to 

comply with the SFSF requirements. 

That said, the Secretary believes, for 

reasons discussed elsewhere in this 

notice, that States must fully develop 

statewide longitudinal data systems and 

may place on high-risk status those 

States that fail to comply with the 

requirements of Indicator (b)(1) by the 

current or (if approved for the State) 

extended deadline. 

With respect to Indicator (c)(11), the 

Department considered proposing only 

an extension of the deadline for 

collecting and reporting student 

enrollment data for high school 

graduates who attend IHEs, but 

concluded that extending the deadline 

for the public, in-State IHEs and 

providing additional flexibility with the 

proposed alternative standard for 

collecting and publicly reporting 

student enrollment data for high school 

graduates who attend private and out-ofState public IHEs would better address 

the capacity concerns raised by States. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

Proposed Revisions to SFSF Indicator 

Requirements 

In the November 2009 Notice, the 

Department provided detailed estimates 

of the costs to States, LEAs, and IHEs of 

complying with the SFSF requirements. 

We have assessed the potential costs 

and benefits of the proposed revisions to 

those requirements in this notice and 

determined that they would impose no 

net additional costs to States, LEAs, or 

IHEs. 

On the contrary, the proposed 

revisions would produce potential net 

cost savings.3 For instance, the 

proposed elimination of the annual 

reporting requirements for Indicators 

(c)(1) through (c)(9) and (d)(1) through 

(d)(6) would confer savings by reducing 

collection and reporting burden on 

States and LEAs. Although it would 

confer some new cost (as discussed in 

more detail later in this section), the 

proposed Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard would confer net savings to 

States using the standard (and to 

affected LEAs and IHEs) by no longer 

requiring that those States, at a 

minimum, fully develop the capacity to 

collect and report, by September 30, 

2011, enrollment data for high school 

graduates who enroll in private or outof-State public IHEs. The proposed 

extensions of the compliance deadlines 

for Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) 

would not add to the costs of complying 

with the associated requirements and 

might result in marginal savings 

(calculated on a present-value basis) as 

States would be able to spread the 

compliance costs over a longer period of 

time. 

Apart from potential cost savings, the 

benefits of the proposed revisions are, as 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, 

simplified and more streamlined SFSF 

requirements that still provide the 

Department and the public with useful 

information on whether States are 

implementing education reforms 

consistent with the statutorily required 

assurances. 

States using the proposed Indicator 

(c)(11) alternative standard would incur 

minimal new costs. Under the standard, 

a State would be required to publicly 

report, by December 31, 2012, 

information on the extent to which it 

has data-sharing agreements with 

private and out-of-State public IHEs that 

enable the State to track its recent high 

school graduates and demonstrate 

certain concrete steps it had taken to 

increase its capacity to track its high 

school graduates who enrolled in 

private and out-of-State public IHEs. We 

estimate that a State would need, on 

average, 40 hours to collect and report 

this information. At $30 per hour, the 

average cost of doing so is an estimated 

$1,200. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 43 States will 

request use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. The total estimated 

cost to States for complying with the 

proposed Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard reporting requirements is 

accordingly $51,600 ($1,200 times 43 

States). 

Proposed Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions of Deadlines for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) Alternative Standard, 

and Proposed Requirements for Revised 

Plans for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) 

The costs for complying with these 

proposed requirements would, in 

general, be minimal. Because States that 

do not meet the requirements associated 

with an SFSF indicator or descriptor 

were already required to submit a plan 

for achieving compliance that includes 

progress tracking and providing regular 

public progress reports, we do not 

believe that any new effort would be 

needed in order for a State to determine 

whether to request an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (b)(1), (c)(11), or 

(c)(12) or use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. 

In requesting a deadline extension or 

use of the alternative standard, a State 

would be required to provide a 

description of its current capacity with 

respect to the applicable indicator and 

a signed assurance that it will comply 

with the revised requirements for the 

indicator and will submit its plan for 

doing so to the Department within 60 

days of the request. The level of effort 

needed to meet these requirements 

would be minimal. We estimate that a 

State would need, on average, eight 

hours to complete such a request. At 

$30 per hour, the average cost of 

completing a request is an estimated 

$240. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 40 States will 

request an extension of the deadline for 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59081 

4A State requesting both an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (c)(11) (as it applies to data 

on student enrollment in in-State public IHEs) and 

use of the alternative standard for that indicator (as 

it applies to data on student enrollment in private 

and out-of-State public IHEs) could address both of 

these requests in a single plan revision for the 

indicator. Consequently, the total number of 

completed plan revisions will almost certainly be 

lower than this estimate. 

5According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

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

public, degree-granting IHEs in fall 2008, which 

represented 74 percent of all first-time freshmen. 

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

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

who graduated from high school within the last 12 

months attended degree-granting IHEs in their 

home State, which represented 81 percent of all 

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

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

number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public, 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be 

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

IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending 

an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 

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

freshmen attending an IHE in their home State to 

the number of first-time freshmen attending public 

degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 

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

Department chooses the midpoint of these figures, 

which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate 

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

postsecondary students graduated from public 

schools, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 

public high school graduates enroll in public 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State. 

Indicator (b)(1), 43 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(11), 47 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(12), and 43 States will request use of 

the Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard. In total, States will complete 

an estimated 173 requests. At $240 per 

request, the total estimated cost to States 

for complying with the proposed 

requirements for requests is $41,520 

($240 times 173 requests). 

A State requesting a deadline 

extension or the use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) alternative standard would then 

be required to submit to the Department, 

within 60 days, a revised plan with 

respect to the applicable indicator that 

includes the specific steps the State will 

take to meet the revised requirements 

for the indicator, the budget for 

developing and implementing the 

revised plan, and the responsible agency 

or agencies. The cost of meeting these 

proposed plan revision requirements 

should also be minimal. We estimate 

that a State would need, on average, 

eight hours to complete a plan revision 

consistent with the requirements. At 

$30 per hour, the average cost of 

completing a plan revision is an 

estimated $240. 

As discussed above, States will 

complete an estimated 173 total requests 

for deadline extensions or for use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

Accordingly, we estimate that States 

will complete, at most, 173 plan 

revisions.4 At $240 per revision, the 

total estimated cost to States for 

complying with the proposed plan 

revision requirements is $41,520 ($240 

per revision times 173 requests). 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with the proposed requirements for 

requests and for plan revisions is 

accordingly $83,040. 

The November 2009 notice detailed 

the cost of collecting and reporting the 

information and data associated with 

Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) on 

an annual basis. We expect that the cost 

of meeting these requirements will be 

reduced because most States have 

completed a substantial amount of the 

work related to collecting and reporting 

the required information. However, 

States requesting an extension of 

Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) will 

need to report the information and data 

for an additional year. We discuss the 

costs associated with reporting these 

indicators for an additional year below. 

We estimate that, on average, a State 

would need one hour to collect and 

report the information associated with 

Indicator (b)(1). This is a one hour 

reduction from the estimate in the 

November 2009 Notice because States 

have indicated that, on average, they 

have completed 50 percent of the work 

associated with collecting and reporting 

this information. Based on information 

available from States on implementation 

of their SFSF plans, we expect that 40 

States will need to collect and report 

this information. At $30 per hour, the 

average cost for collecting and reporting 

this information is $30. The total 

estimated cost for complying with the 

Indicator (b)(1) reporting requirements 

is $1,200 ($30 per hour times 40 States). 

As 9 States have already met the 

requirement for Indicator (c)(11), we 

expect that 43 States will need to collect 

and report the information associated 

with it, or provide evidence that they 

have developed the capacity to do so, 

for students who attend in-State, public 

IHEs. We estimate that, on average, a 

State would need 40 hours to meet this 

requirement. This is a reduction from 

the average hours per response in the 

November 2009 Notice because this 

estimate only includes reporting on 

students who attend in-State, public 

IHEs rather than all students enrolled in 

an IHE. The remaining students will be 

covered under the (c)(11) alternative 

standard. At $30 per hour, we estimate 

that the average cost of meeting this 

requirement is $1,200. The total 

estimated cost for States to comply with 

the requirements for Indicator (c)(11) is 

$51,600 ($1,200 per State times 43 

States). 

The 13,409 LEAs located in those 43 

States would need to provide 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(11). Based on an estimate of the total 

number of students enrolled in public 

IHEs in their home State,5 and based on 

the assumption that LEAs could provide 

this information at a rate of 20 students 

per hour, we estimate that these LEAs 

will require a total of 84,584 hours to 

comply with the requirements for 

Indicator (c)(11) at a total cost of 

$2,114,597. Divided by the total number 

of affected LEAs, we estimate that each 

LEA would require 6.31 hours to 

provide this information. This would be 

a reduction from the average hours per 

response in the November 2009 Notice 

because the current estimate only relates 

to students who attend in-State, public 

IHEs rather than all students attending 

an IHE. Information on the remaining 

students will be covered under the 

(c)(11) alternative standard. At $25 per 

hour, the average cost per LEA of 

meeting the requirements of this 

Indicator is approximately $158. 

Again, based on our estimate of the 

total number of students enrolled in 

public IHEs in their home State and the 

assumption that IHEs could provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, we estimate that a total of 84,584 

hours would be required for the 1,676 

IHEs in the 43 affected States to respond 

to this requirement. On average, each 

IHE would need 50.47 hours to collect 

and report the information associated 

with Indicator (c)(11). This would be an 

increase in the average hours per 

response in the November 2009 Notice 

because this estimate only relates to 

students who attend in-State public 

IHEs rather than all students attending 

an IHE. The remaining students will be 

covered under the (c)(11) alternative 

standard. The average burden per 

response increased from the burden 

estimated in the November 2009 Notice 

because the analysis now accounts for 

in-State public IHEs in the 43 States that 

have not yet met this requirement. Since 

74 percent of freshmen attend in-State 

public IHEs, the burden in this notice is 

higher because it is no longer shared 

with private and out-of-State IHEs, 

which led to lower overall burden that 

we estimated for all IHEs in the 

November 2009 Notice. We expect that 

1,676 IHEs will need to provide this 

information. At $25 per hour, the 

average cost per IHE for collecting and 

reporting this information is $1,261.75. 

The total estimated cost for IHEs to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

comply with the reporting requirements 

for Indicator (c)(11) is $2,114,597. 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with the reporting requirements in 

Indicator (c)(11) is $4,280,794. 

Based on information provided by the 

States, we expect that 47 States will 

need to collect and report the 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(12). We estimate that, on average, a 

State would need 20 hours to collect 

and report the information. This 

represents a 20 hour reduction from our 

estimate in the November 2009 Notice 

because States have indicated that, on 

average, they have completed 50 percent 

of the work associated with this 

Indicator. At $30 per hour, the average 

cost for collecting and reporting this 

information is $600. The total estimated 

cost for States to comply with the 

reporting requirements for Indicator 

(c)(12) is $28,200 ($600 per State times 

47 States). 

The 1,555 IHEs located in these States 

would be required to report information 

on the number of students who have 

completed at least one year’s worth of 

college credit within two years of 

enrollment in the IHE. Based on data 

from the Digest of Education Statistics, 

we estimate that 1,140,855 first-time 

freshmen are enrolled in degree-granting 

in-State public IHEs in the 47 States that 

have not yet met this requirement. We 

estimate that IHEs could provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, which leads to approximately 

57,043 hours of total effort across the 

affected IHEs at an estimated cost of 

$1,426,069. By dividing this total 

number of hours by the 1,555 public 

IHEs in the 47 States, we estimate that, 

on average, an IHE would need 36.68 

hours to collect and report the 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(12). This represents a reduction from 

the average hours per response that we 

estimated in the November 2009 Notice 

because some States with higher than 

average percentages of in-State students 

have already completed this work. We 

estimate a reduced average response 

time after excluding the IHEs from 

States that have completed the work 

from the calculation. At $25 per hour of 

IHE effort, we estimate that the average 

cost for collecting and reporting this 

information is $917 per IHE. 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with the reporting requirements in 

Indicator (c)(12) is $1,454,269. The total 

estimated cost for complying with the 

collection and reporting requirements 

associated with (b)(1), (c)(11), and 

(c)(12) is accordingly $5,736,263. 

The total estimated cost for complying 

with those collection and reporting 

requirements and the proposed 

requirements in this notice is 

$5,870,903. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are small LEAs 

receiving funds under this program and 

small IHEs. 

This regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

LEAs because they will be able to meet 

the costs of compliance with this 

regulatory action using the funds 

provided under this program. 

With respect to small IHEs, the U.S. 

Small Business Administration Size 

Standards define these institutions as 

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

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

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

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions, which are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000. Based on data from the 

Department’s Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), up to 

427 small IHEs with revenues of less 

than $5 million may be affected by these 

requirements; only 33 of these IHEs are 

public. These small IHEs represent only 

13 percent of degree-granting IHEs. In 

addition, only 98,032 students (0.5 

percent) enrolled in degree-granting 

IHEs in fall 2007 attended these small 

institutions; just 11,830 of these 

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

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

by the number of students for whom 

IHEs would be required to submit data, 

small IHEs will require significantly less 

effort to adhere to these requirements 

than will be the case for larger IHEs. 

Based on IPEDS data, the Department 

estimates that 1,873 of these students 

are first-time freshmen. As stated earlier 

in the Summary of Costs and Benefits 

section of this notice, the Department 

estimates that, as required by indicator 

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

enrollment of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Applying this estimate to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

at small IHEs, the Department estimates 

that these IHEs will need to spend 94 

hours to respond to this requirement at 

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

of $25 per hour). 

The effort involved in reporting the 

number of students enrolling in a public 

IHE in their home State who complete 

at least one year’s worth of college 

credit applicable toward a degree within 

two years as required by indicator 

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

will be limited to students who enroll 

in public IHEs in their home State. As 

discussed earlier in the Summary of 

Costs and Benefits section of this notice, 

the Department estimates that 81 

percent of first-time freshmen who 

graduate from public high schools enroll 

in degree-granting IHEs in their home 

State. Applying this percentage to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

enrolled in small public IHEs (1,873), 

the Department estimates that small 

IHEs will be required to report credit 

completion data for a total of 1,517 

students. For this requirement, the 

Department also estimates that IHEs will 

be able to report the credit completion 

status of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Again, applying this data entry 

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

their home State, the Department 

estimates that these IHEs will need to 

spend 76 hours to respond to this 

requirement at a total cost of $1,900. 

The total cost of these requirements for 

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

of this cost will be borne by small 

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

be borne by small public IHEs. Based on 

the total number of small IHEs across 

the Nation, the estimated cost per small 

private IHE is approximately $10, and 

the estimated cost per small public IHE 

is $66. The Department has, therefore, 

determined that the requirements will 

not represent a significant burden on 

small not-for-profit IHEs. It is also 

important to note that States may use 

their Government Services Fund 

allocations to help small IHEs meet the 

costs of complying with the 

requirements that affect them, and 

public IHEs may use Education 

Stabilization Fund dollars they receive 

for that purpose. 

In addition, the Department believes 

the benefits provided under this 

regulatory action will outweigh the 

burdens on these institutions of 

complying with the requirements. One 

of these benefits will be the provision of 

better information on student success in 

postsecondary education to 

policymakers, educators, parents, and 

other stakeholders. The Department 

believes that the information gathered 

and reported as a result of these 

requirements will improve public 

accountability for performance; help 

States, LEAs, and schools learn from 

one another and improve their decisionmaking; and inform Federal 

policymaking. 

A second major benefit is that better 

public information on State and local 

progress in the four reform areas will 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59083 

6A State requesting both an extension of the 

deadline for Indicator (c)(11) (as it applies to data 

on student enrollment in in-State public IHEs) and 

use of the alternative standard for that indicator (as 

it applies to data on student enrollment in private 

and out-of-State public IHEs) could address both of 

these requests in a single plan revision for the 

indicator. Consequently, the total number of 

completed plan revisions will likely be lower than 

this estimate. 

likely spur more rapid progress on those 

reforms, because States and LEAs that 

appear to be lagging in one area or 

another may see a need to redouble their 

efforts. The Department believes that 

more rapid progress on the essential 

educational reforms will have major 

benefits nationally, and that these 

reforms have the potential to drive 

dramatic improvements in student 

outcomes. The requirements that apply 

to IHEs should, in particular, spur more 

rapid implementation of pre-K–16 State 

longitudinal data systems. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

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

This helps ensure that: The public 

understands the Department’s collection 

instructions; respondents can provide 

the requested data in the desired format; 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized; collection 

instruments are clearly understood; and 

the Department can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

This notice of proposed revisions 

contains information collection 

requirements previously approved 

under OMB control number 1810–0695, 

revisions to which are proposed herein. 

The Department has contemporaneously 

published a notice of interim final 

requirements that extends the deadline 

for reporting under the existing 

performance indicators (See RIN 1894– 

AA03). Under the PRA the Department 

has submitted both the information 

collection contained in the IFR and the 

revised information collection 

requirements contained in this notice to 

OMB for its review. 

A Federal agency cannot conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

In the final requirements, we will 

display the control number assigned by 

OMB to any information collection 

requirement proposed in this notice of 

proposed revisions and adopted in the 

final requirements. 

Revisions to SFSF Indicator (c)(11) 

Requirements 

Under the proposed Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard, a State would be 

required to publicly report, by 

December 31, 2012, information on the 

extent to which it has data-sharing 

agreements with private and out-of-State 

public IHEs that enable the State to 

track its recent high school graduates. 

We estimate that a State would need, on 

average, 40 hours to collect and report 

this information. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 43 States will 

request use of the Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard. The total estimated 

hours for States to comply with the 

proposed Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard reporting requirements is 

accordingly an increase of 1,720 hours 

(40 hours per request times 43 requests) 

under collection 1810–0695. 

Proposed Requirements for Requests for 

Extensions of Deadlines for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or Use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) Alternative Standard, 

and Proposed Requirements for Revised 

Plans for Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and 

(c)(12) 

Because States that did not meet the 

requirements associated with an SFSF 

indicator or descriptor were required to 

submit a plan for achieving compliance 

that includes progress tracking and 

providing regular public progress 

reports, we do not believe that any new 

effort would be needed in order for a 

State to determine whether to request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(b)(1), (c)(11), or (c)(12) or use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

In requesting a deadline extension or 

use of the alternative standard, a State 

would be required to provide a 

description of its current capacity with 

respect to the applicable indicator and 

a signed assurance that it will comply 

with the revised requirements for the 

indicator and will submit its plan for 

doing so to the Department within 60 

days of the request. The level of effort 

needed to meet these requirements 

would be minimal. We estimate that a 

State would need, on average, eight 

hours to complete such a request. 

Based on information available from 

States on implementation of their SFSF 

plans, we estimate that 40 States will 

request an extension of the deadline for 

Indicator (b)(1), 43 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(11), 47 States will request an 

extension of the deadline for Indicator 

(c)(12), and 43 States will request use of 

the Indicator (c)(11) alternative 

standard. In total, States will complete 

an estimated 173 requests. The total 

estimated hours for States to comply 

with the proposed requirements for 

requests is an increase of 1,384 hours 

(eight hours per request times 173 

requests) under collection 1810–0695. 

A State requesting a deadline 

extension or the use of the Indicator 

(c)(11) alternative standard would then 

be required to submit to the Department, 

within 60 days, a revised plan with 

respect to the applicable indicator that 

includes the specific steps the State will 

take to meet the revised requirements 

for the indicator, the budget for 

developing and implementing the 

revised plan, and the responsible agency 

or agencies. We estimate that a State 

would need, on average, eight hours to 

complete a plan revision consistent with 

the requirements. 

As discussed above, States will 

complete an estimated 173 total requests 

for deadline extensions or for use of the 

Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard. 

Accordingly, we estimate that States 

will complete, at most, 173 plan 

revisions.6 At eight hours per revision, 

the total estimated burden to States for 

complying with the proposed plan 

revision requirements is an increase of 

1,384 hours (eight hours per request 

times 173 requests) under collection 

1810–0695. 

The total estimated burden for 

complying with the proposed 

requirements for requests and for plan 

revisions is accordingly 2,768 hours. 

After requesting an extension and 

providing a plan, a State would be 

required to collect and report the 

information associated with Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) by December 

31, 2012. Based on information 

available from States on implementation 

of their SFSF plan, we estimate that 40 

States will need to report and collect the 

information associated with Indicator 

(b)(1). At an estimated one hour per 

collection and report, the total estimated 

burden to States is an increase of 40 

hours (one hour per State times 40 

States) under collection 1810–0695. The 

average response time of one hour per 

collection is a one hour reduction from 

the estimates we provided in the 

November 2009 Notice because States 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59084 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

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

public, degree-granting IHEs in fall 2008, which 

represented 74 percent of all first-time freshmen. 

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

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

who graduated from high school within the last 12 

months attended degree-granting IHEs in their 

home State, which represented 81 percent of all 

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

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

number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public, 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be 

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

IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending 

an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 

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

freshmen attending an IHE in their home State to 

the number of first-time freshmen attending public 

degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 

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

Department chooses the midpoint of these figures, 

which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate 

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

postsecondary students graduated from public 

schools, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 

public high school graduates enroll in public 

degree-granting IHEs in their home State. 

have indicated that, on average, they 

have completed 50 percent of the work 

associated with reporting on this 

indicator. 

As 9 States have already met the 

requirement for Indicator (c)(11), we 

expect that 43 States will need to collect 

and report the information associated 

with Indicator (c)(11), or provide 

evidence that they have developed the 

capacity to do so, for students who 

attend in-State, public IHEs. We 

estimate that, on average, a State would 

need 40 hours to meet this requirement. 

This is a reduction from the average 

hours per response that we estimated in 

the November 2009 Notice because the 

current estimate only relates to students 

who attend in-State, public IHEs rather 

than all students enrolled in an IHE. 

The remaining students will be covered 

under the (c)(11) alternative standard. 

The current estimate would equal a 

1,720 hour (40 hours per State times 43 

States) increase under collection 1810– 

0695. 

The 13,409 LEAs located in those 43 

States would need to provide 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(11). Based on an estimate of the total 

number of students enrolled in public 

IHEs in their home State,7 and based on 

the assumption that LEAs could provide 

this information at a rate of 20 students 

per hour, we estimate that these LEAs 

will require a total of 84,584 hours to 

comply with the requirements for 

Indicator (c)(11). Divided by the total 

number of affected LEAs, we estimate 

that each LEA would require 6.31 hours 

to provide this information. This would 

be a reduction from the average hours 

per response estimated in the November 

2009 Notice because the current 

estimate only relates to students who 

attend in-State, public IHEs rather than 

all students attending an IHE. 

Information on the remaining students 

will be covered under the (c)(11) 

alternative standard. 

Again, based on our estimate of the 

total number of students enrolled in 

public IHEs in their home State and the 

assumption that IHEs could provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, we estimate that, a total of 84,584 

hours would be required for the 1,676 

IHEs in the 43 affected States to respond 

to this requirement. On average, each 

IHE would need 50.47 hours to provide 

the information associated with 

Indicator (c)(11). This would be an 

increase in the average hours per 

response estimated in the November 

2009 Notice because this estimate only 

relates to students who attend in-State 

public IHEs rather than all students 

attending an IHE. The remaining 

students will be covered under the 

(c)(11) alternative standard. The average 

burden per response increased from the 

burden estimated in the November 2009 

Notice because the analysis now 

accounts for in-State public IHEs in the 

43 States that have not yet met this 

requirement. Because 74 percent of 

freshmen attend in-State public IHEs, 

the burden under these proposed 

revisions is higher because it is no 

longer shared with private and out-ofState IHEs, which led to an estimate of 

a lower overall burden for all IHEs in 

the November 2009 Notice. We expect 

that 1,676 IHEs will need to provide this 

information. 

The total estimated hours for 

complying with the requirements of 

Indicator (c)(11) is 170,888. 

We estimate that the State burden for 

collecting and reporting the information 

associated with Indicator (c)(12), or 

providing evidence that the State has 

developed the capacity to do so, will be 

approximately 20 hours per State. This 

is a 20 hour reduction from the 

estimates in the November 2009 Notice 

because States have indicated that they 

have, on average, completed 50 percent 

of the work for this Indicator. Based on 

information provided by the States, we 

expect that 47 States will need to 

provide this information. Accordingly, 

the total burden to States is an increase 

of 940 hours (20 hours per State times 

47 States) under collection 1810–0695. 

The 1,555 IHEs located in these States 

would be required to report information 

on the number of students who have 

completed at least one year’s worth of 

college credit within two years of 

enrollment in the IHE. Based on data 

from the Digest of Education Statistics, 

we estimate that 1,140,855 first-time 

freshmen are enrolled in degree-granting 

in-State public IHEs in the 47 States that 

have not yet met this requirement. We 

estimate that IHEs could provide this 

information at a rate of 20 students per 

hour, which leads to approximately 

57,043 hours of total effort across the 

affected IHEs. By dividing the total 

number of hours by the 1,555 public 

IHEs in the 47 States, we estimate that, 

on average, an IHE would need 36.68 

hours to collect and report the 

information associated with Indicator 

(c)(12). The average hours per response 

is less than the estimate in the 

November 2009 Notice because some 

States with higher than average 

percentages of in-State students have 

already completed this work. Excluding 

the IHEs from these States from the 

calculations led to a reduced average 

response time. 

The total estimated burden hours for 

complying with the collection and 

reporting requirements for Indicator 

(c)(12) is 57,983. 

The estimated burden hours for 

complying with the collection and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the proposed Indicator (c)(11) 

alternative standard is discussed above. 

The total estimated burden hours for 

complying with the proposed collection 

and reporting requirements associated 

with Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11) and (c)(12) 

is accordingly 228,911 hours. 

The total estimated burden for 

complying with the proposed 

requirements in this notice is an 

increase of 233,399 hours under 

collection 1810–0695. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59085 

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

Information collection OMB Control No. and estimated change in burden 

This notice of proposed revisions proposes an extension for collecting and reporting information associated with Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12); an alternative standard for Indicator (c)(11); proposes requirements for requests for extensions of deadlines for Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12); and proposes requirements for revised plans for Indicators 

(b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12).

OMB 1810–0695. 

The burden would increase by 233,399 hours. 

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 

e-mail to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov 

or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may 

also send a copy of these comments to 

the Department contact named in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

We have prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for this 

collection. In preparing your comments 

you may want to review the ICR, which 

we maintain in the Education 

Department Information Collection 

System (EDICS) at http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on Browse 

Pending Collections. This proposed 

collection is identified as proposed 

collection 1810–0695. 

We consider your comments on this 

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 regulations 

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 regulations. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Department invites 

comment on whether these 

requirements require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

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

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.394 (Education 

Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 (Government 

Services Fund). 

Dated: September 19, 2011. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24563 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3001 

[Docket No. RM2011–13; Order No. 823] 

Appeals of Post Office Closings 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking— 

supplement. 

SUMMARY: This document supplements a 

recently-issued proposed rulemaking on 

appeals of post office closings by 

eliminating a publication requirement 

and by making several minor 

conforming changes. Including these 

changes as part of the more 

comprehensive rulemaking promotes 

efficiency by allowing interested 

persons to address proposed changes in 

one filing. These changes affect only the 

Commission’s general rules of practice 

and procedure. They do not affect any 

of the provisions in proposed new part 

3025. Persons who need additional time 

to comment on the changes in this 

supplemental proposed rule may 

request additional time. 

DATES: Comments are due: October 3, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https:www.prc.gov/prc-pages/ 

filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters 

who cannot submit their views 

electronically should contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for advice 

on alternatives to electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6920 (for proposal-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(for electronic filing assistance). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1