[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58301-58309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23259]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A
[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0012; CFDA Number 84.412A]
RIN 1810-AB15
Final Requirements--Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge;
Phase 2
AGENCY: Department of Education and Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Final requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (hereafter ``the Secretaries'') announce requirements
for Phase 2 of the Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC)
program. In Phase 2, we will make awards to certain States that applied
for, but did not receive, funding under the RTT-ELC competition held in
fiscal year (FY) 2011 (FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition). Specifically, we
will consider eligible the five highest scoring applicants that did not
receive funding in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, each of which
received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points under
the
[[Page 58302]]
competition. We take this action to fund down the slate of the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition and to establish the information and assurances
that the five eligible applicants will need to provide in order to
receive funding under Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program.
DATES: Effective Date: These requirements are effective October 22,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202-
6200. Telephone: (202) 260-3793 or by email:
[email protected].
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:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The U.S. Departments of
Education and Health and Human Services (hereafter ``the Departments'')
will implement Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program by funding down the slate
from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. Specifically, the Departments
will make awards available to the next five highest scoring applicants
that did not receive funding under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition.
Because the amount of available funds in FY 2012 is limited, this
action establishes specific requirements that the five eligible
applicants must meet in order to receive up to 50 percent of the funds
they requested in their FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this
document, we establish a limited number of application requirements,
assurances, and budget requirements that the five eligible applicants
must meet in order to receive funds under Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC
program.
The Application Requirements, which can be found in section III of
the Final Requirements section, require each eligible applicant to: (1)
Describe how it would implement the activities proposed in Core Area B
(selection criteria one through five) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application; (2) describe how it would implement the activities
proposed in Competitive Preference Priority 2 of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application; and (3) from two or more of the three Focused Investment
Areas (C, D, and E) in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, select
activities proposed in response to one or more selection criteria. The
Application Requirements section further explains how applicants may
make adjustments to the scope of the activities they proposed in their
FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications to ensure that the activities can be
carried out successfully with the amount of funds available in Phase 2
of the RTT-ELC program.
The Application Assurances, which can be found in section IV of the
Final Requirements section, include a set of assurances for eligible
applicants to include in their applications for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards.
These assurances relate to commitments made in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
applications. For example, in order to receive a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award,
an eligible applicant must update the information in tables 1-13 in
section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, which described
State funding, programs, and policies that supported early learning at
the time the FY 2011 application was submitted. Each eligible applicant
must maintain the commitments made in section (A)(1) in a manner
consistent with the updated tables. Each eligible applicant must also
maintain commitments to engage in the partnerships described in its FY
2011 RTT-ELC application in a manner consistent with the updated
tables. These commitments are critical to building strong State systems
of early learning and development. This requirement is important
because the strength of these commitments influenced how reviewers
scored the FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications during the FY 2011 peer review
process.
The Budget Requirements, which can be found in section V of the
Final Requirements section, require that an eligible applicant complete
a revised budget and narrative that includes an explanation of why the
eligible applicant has selected the activities it proposes to carry out
(as described under ``Application Requirements'') and why those
activities would have the greatest impact on advancing its high-quality
plan for early learning.
Costs and Benefits: We have determined that these requirements will
not impose significant additional costs to States, the eligible
applicants under the RTT-ELC program, or the Federal Government and
that the potential benefits will exceed the costs. The Departments
believe States will incur minimal costs in developing plans and budgets
for implementing selected activities from their FY 2011 RTT-ELC
proposals because such planning will entail only revisions to existing
plans and budgets already developed as part of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application process.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the RTT-ELC program is to
improve the quality of early learning and development and close the
achievement gap for children with high needs. This program focuses on
improving early learning and development for young children by
supporting States' efforts to increase the number and percentage of
low-income and disadvantaged children, in each age group of infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers, who are enrolled in high-quality early
learning and development programs; and to design and implement an
integrated system of high-quality early learning and development
programs and services.
Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), as
amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of Pub. L. 112-10, the
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012
(Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112-74, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012) (hereafter ``the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012'').
We published a notice of proposed requirements (NPR) for this
program in the Federal Register on June 20, 2012 (77 FR 36958). The NPR
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular requirements and assurances for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC
program.
There are two significant differences between the requirements
proposed in the NPR and these final requirements. First, in this
notice, the Departments have clarified that applicants may make
reductions and adjustments in the activities in Core Area A(3)(a)(1),
Core Area B, and Competitive Preference Priority 2 based on the 50
percent reduction in available Federal funding for Phase 2 of the RTT-
ELC program. Second, the Departments are requiring applicants to
explain any significant changes to the information provided in section
(A)(1) that have occurred since submission of their FY 2011
applications, including updates to the information provided in tables
1-13 in section (A)(1) of their FY 2011 applications. These changes are
described in greater detail below in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes section.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPR, twelve
parties submitted comments on the proposed requirements. In the
following section, we summarize and provide responses to the comments
we received. We group major issues addressed in these comments
according to subject.
[[Page 58303]]
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
any changes in the requirements since publication of the NPR follows.
Eligibility and Allocation of Funds
Comment: One commenter questioned why only the five States named in
the NPR are eligible to apply and asked whether other States might
receive funds if the five eligible States do not apply.
Discussion: The NPR included a discussion of the reasons for
limiting eligibility to the five States named in the NPR. When the
Departments made FY 2011 RTT-ELC awards, we did not have sufficient
funding to award grants to all high-quality applications. The
Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 authorizes the
Departments to make awards on the basis of previously submitted
applications. In light of the fact that the amount of funds available
in FY 2012 is inadequate to conduct a meaningful new competition, we
have chosen to use the available FY 2012 funds to make awards to the
next five highest scoring applications, each of which received
approximately 75 percent or more of the available points under the
competition. The Secretaries believe that supporting high-scoring
applicants that did not receive funding under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition with FY 2012 funding will help build on the momentum from
the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. Because we are funding down the FY
2011 slate and only limited funds are available, we are not opening
eligibility to all non-funded applicants. If any of the five eligible
applicants do not apply for funds, those funds that remain unawarded
would be used to support grants made under the FY 2012 Race to the Top
District competition. We would not make any remaining FY 2012 funds
available to other unfunded applicants from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Departments establish
a protocol to ensure that if any funds are not awarded to the eligible
applicants, they can be recommitted to the other applicants. The
commenters stated that all of the $133 million available for RTT-ELC in
FY 2012 should be used for ``Early Learning Challenge purposes.''
Discussion: As described previously, the Departments decided that
if any of the five eligible applicants do not apply for funds, the
funds will be used for awards in the FY 2012 Race to the Top District
competition, which may support district-level reforms in early
learning. Funds that are not awarded through RTT-ELC Phase 2 will not
be made available to other unfunded applicants from the FY 2011
competition.
Change: None.
Modification of Activities
Comment: Three commenters requested clarification about the
proposed requirement that Phase 2 RTT-ELC funds not be used for new
activities and sought clarification of the difference between new
activities, new strategies, new tactics, and new goals. The commenters
also suggested that reasonable modifications to proposed activities
should be allowed due to activities that have occurred since States
submitted their FY 2011 applications.
Discussion: Applicants must select key activities from their FY
2011 applications. Due to the 50 percent reduction in funding available
under Phase 2 RTT-ELC, a State may adjust the scope of budget,
timelines, or performance measures for those selected activities. In so
doing, a State may, in fact, modify some strategies or tactics to
complete an activity from its FY 2011 application in order to
accomplish the goal specified in that application.
A State is not permitted, however, to use Phase 2 RTT-ELC funds for
activities that were not included in its FY 2011 application because
the applications of the five eligible States were reviewed, scored, and
ranked through the Departments' FY 2011 RTT-ELC peer review process. It
would therefore be inappropriate to allow applicants to introduce new
activities in place of those activities that were proposed in their FY
2011 applications.
The Departments will provide technical assistance to applicants on
what constitutes a ``new activity'' rather than an adjustment to the
scope of an activity included in a State's FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
For example, creating an entirely new project to address one of the
selection criteria would be a new activity, while a change in the
number of regions served or subgrants awarded would be an allowable
adjustment. The adjustments may not significantly diminish the
program's ability to improve access to high-quality early learning
programs for children with high needs. In addition, when the scope of
work is adjusted by targeting specific regions in a State, the
activities must be consistent across those regions. In making these
adjustments, the Departments strongly encourage eligible applicants to
consider how to use other appropriate Federal, State, private, and
local resources in order to maximize the impact of the investment of
RTT-ELC funds. If we determine that a State's Phase 2 application
proposes activities that were not included in its FY 2011 application,
those activities will not be funded, and we will work with the State to
make the necessary adjustments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of whether
reductions and adjustments in scope, budget, timelines, and performance
targets are permitted for Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, and
Competitive Preference Priority 2.
Discussion: The intention of the Departments is that applicants
carry out the activities described in Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area
B, and Competitive Preference Priority 2. However, in light of the
reduced funding levels, applicants may modify these activities with
adjustments to their scopes, budgets, timelines, and performance
measures.
Changes: The Departments have clarified this in the Application
Requirements section of this document. Applicants may make adjustments
in scopes, budgets, timelines and performance targets for activities in
Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, and Competitive Preference Priority
2.
Required Core and Focused Investment Areas
Comment: One commenter suggested that it might be preferable to
allow applicants to focus only on one of the Focused Investment Areas
rather than two or more.
Discussion: The Departments understand the request to narrow the
focus areas since less funding will be available for each applicant but
believe that eligible applicants will be able to implement important
activities in at least two Focused Investment Areas. This program is
designed to take a comprehensive approach to improving State systems of
early learning, and all three Focused Investment Areas are important to
the success of that approach. We are not revising the requirement as
suggested by the commenter because the option to select two of the
three Investment Areas provides applicants with the flexibility to
select those activities that they can effectively carry out with
reduced funds, while at the same time maintaining the comprehensive
nature of the program. Applicants will have flexibility within the
Focused Investment Areas they select as to which selection criteria
they want to implement. Furthermore, eligible applicants will have
flexibility
[[Page 58304]]
regarding the amount of funds they choose to allocate to each Focused
Investment Area. Applicants must explain in their applications the
Focused Investment Areas and the selection criteria they have chosen to
implement and how the reduced funding amount will affect their
implementation. In addition, the Departments strongly encourage
eligible applicants to leverage other appropriate Federal, State,
private, and local resources to support their selected activities.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (a) of the Budget Requirements
section to reflect that the dedication of other sources of funding is
an example of adjustments that would be described in the budget
narrative.
Comment: One commenter suggested that all applicants be required to
address Focused Investment Area D: ``A Great Early Childhood Education
Workforce.''
Discussion: While workforce development is extremely important in
building a high-quality State early learning system, the Departments
chose not to require Focused Investment Area D for several reasons.
First, the FY 2011 application did not give Area D a higher priority
over Areas C and E, because the Departments believe that all three
areas are important. Second, workforce issues are addressed under Core
Area B. In fact, one of the reasons we are requiring applicants to
address all of the selection criteria under Core Area B is that this
section includes all the elements of a comprehensive early learning
system, from standards, to workforce credentials, to parent engagement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that selection criterion B(4), which
promotes access to high-quality early learning and development programs
for children with high needs, should receive a high level of
recognition and support in this competition.
Discussion: The Departments agree with the commenter that access to
high-quality programs for children with high needs is of critical
importance. To that end, both the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application and the
NPR emphasized improving early learning and development programs for
children with high needs. Specifically, the NPR proposed that eligible
applicants be required to address all of the selection criteria in Core
Area B, which includes B(4), ``Promoting access to high-quality early
learning and development programs for children with high needs.'' We
retain that language in these final requirements and will provide
eligible applicants with technical assistance that emphasizes the
importance of all criteria within Core Area B.
Changes: None.
Maintenance of State Commitments
Comment: Two commenters requested some flexibility in the proposed
assurance that States maintain all of the commitments described in
section (A)(1). The commenters expressed concern that holding States to
section (A)(1) commitments could result in funds being reduced in other
high-need areas, and requested clarification of the budgetary
requirements of grantees with respect to this section.
Discussion: Applicants were judged in the FY 2011 competition based
on the commitments described in those applications, and we strongly
encourage States to maintain those commitments. At the same time, we
understand that this is a challenging time for many States due to
budget reductions. For that reason, we have chosen to maintain
Assurance (b) but have specified that the State will maintain, in a
manner consistent with any updates to tables 1-13 in section A(1), its
commitment to and investment in high-quality, accessible early learning
and development programs and services for children with high needs, as
described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. We have
added language requiring each applicant to explain any significant
changes in section (A)(1) that may have occurred since its submission
of the FY 2011 application.
Changes: The Departments have added language to the Application
Assurances section that requires each applicant to explain any
significant changes to section (A)(1) that may have occurred since the
submission of its FY 2011 application, and to provide updates to tables
1-13 in section (A)(1).
Comment: Three commenters inquired whether the tables in section
(A)(1) of the FY 2011 application would need to be resubmitted in the
Phase 2 application.
Discussion: The NPR was silent on whether the tables in section
(A)(1) would need to be resubmitted in the Phase 2 RTT-ELC application.
However, in order to ensure we have comprehensive, accurate, and
current information, and provide additional flexibility on Assurance
(b), the Departments will need to know which parts of the tables in
section (A)(1) have changed. Therefore, the Departments are requiring
that States update and resubmit tables 1-5 in their Phase 2
applications. Also, if the State has made any significant changes to
the commitments, financial investments, numbers of children
participating, legislation, policies, practices, or other key areas of
the program described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application, it
must submit an explanation of those changes, including updates to
tables 6-13 from section (A)(1).
Changes: The Departments have added language to the Application
Assurances section that requires applicants to submit an explanation of
any significant changes to section (A)(1) that have occurred in the
commitments, financial investments, numbers of children participating,
legislation, policies, practices, or other key areas since their
submission of the FY 2011 application, including resubmission of tables
1-5 and, as needed, updating tables 6-13.
Additional Selection Criteria and Priorities
Comment: Several commenters proposed adding or changing the
selection criteria and priorities from the FY 2011 application. One
commenter proposed adding a competitive preference priority for
expanding programs to disadvantaged communities, including rural and
isolated areas. One commenter proposed a new invitational priority for
mandatory full-day kindergarten. One commenter proposed a selection
criterion that focuses on the strength of a State's kindergarten
readiness assessment as an alternative for States that do not have a
kindergarten entry assessment. One commenter proposed that a selection
criterion be added that would allow States to demonstrate the effect of
reforms made during the year between the FY 2011 competition and Phase
2 RTT-ELC and that would score States on the progress made. One
commenter recommended that we change the licensing and inspection
requirement in Competitive Preference Priority 2 so that instead of
awarding points to States that implement licensing and inspection
systems that cover all programs that regularly care for two or more
unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting, it would instead
state a broader goal of implementing a coordinated system of licensing
and Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System (TQRIS) tiers,
supported by monitoring and inspection.
Discussion: These recommendations would impose new priorities or
selection criteria that were not included in the FY 2011 application.
The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 specifically
authorizes the Departments to make awards on the basis of previously
submitted applications. This is the
[[Page 58305]]
approach we have taken because the funding available in FY 2012 is
inadequate to conduct a meaningful new competition. Because we are
making awards on the basis of previously submitted applications, we
will not be making changes to any of the priorities or selection
criteria from the FY 2011 application.
Changes: None
Comment: Several commenters recommended new program requirements
for Phase 2 RTT-ELC grantees. One commenter recommended that we require
the five eligible applicants to serve more young children than the
current baseline by revising assurance (b) to add ``and increasing the
numbers of high-need children served by local programs in the State
during the grant period.'' One commenter recommended that the
Departments add an assurance requiring that no less than one-third of
the grant funds be provided as subgrants to local programs to improve
services and serve children with high needs. One commenter proposed a
new requirement that applicants demonstrate significant LEA involvement
in developing their applications.
Discussion: These recommendations would impose new program
requirements on the eligible applicants that were not included in the
FY 2011 application. For the reasons stated previously, the Departments
are not changing any of the program requirements from the FY 2011
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that if the Departments were to
impose a maintenance-of-effort requirement for these grants, they
should use language modeled on past maintenance-of-effort requirements
that have appropriate waiver provisions.
Discussion: This program does not have a maintenance-of-effort
requirement, and the Departments have not chosen to propose one. While
there is no maintenance-of-effort requirement, funds awarded in Phase 2
RTT-ELC must be used to supplement, not supplant, any Federal State, or
local funds for activities such as increasing access to and improving
the quality of Early Learning and Development Programs.
Change: None.
Supplement, Not Supplant
Comment: One commenter requested that language on the supplement-
not-supplant requirement from the Executive Summary of the FY 2011 RTT-
ELC NIA be added to the Phase 2 RTT-ELC NIA for FY 2012.
Discussion: The Program Requirements in the RTT-ELC NIA for FY 2011
stated that funds made available under an RTT-ELC grant must be used to
supplement, not supplant, any Federal, State, or local funds that in
the absence of the funds awarded under this grant, would be available
for increasing access to and improving the quality of Early Learning
and Development Programs. This requirement applies to all Phase 2 RTT-
ELC awards. The Departments have included language about the RTT-ELC
supplement-not-supplant requirement in the Phase 2 NIA and will include
it in technical assistance provided to applicants.
Changes: None.
Grant Period
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification on the duration and
flexibility of the grant period.
Discussion: Since the NPR stated that all requirements not
otherwise specified were to be consistent with the FY 2011 application,
the grant period will be up to four years.
Changes: None.
Contracts and Subgrants
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether
contracting and subgranting would be allowable under these awards.
Discussion: The awarding of contracts has always been allowable
under RTT-ELC. Initially, States were not permitted to subgrant funds
under this program. However, the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 2012 specifically provided that a State may make subgrants to
public or private agencies and organizations under the RTT-ELC program.
Thus, contracting and subgranting are allowable uses of Phase 2 RTT-ELC
funds. The Lead State Agency and Participating State Agencies may,
consistent with the State's approved plan, distribute funds to
localities and other entities through memoranda of understanding,
interagency agreements, contracts, other mechanisms authorized by State
procurement laws, or subgrants. As always, a State's laws and
procedures govern subawards. Public Law 112-74 does not require
grantees to make subgrants; it simply provides grantees with this
additional mechanism for distributing RTT-ELC funds, so long as
awarding subgrants is consistent with State law and does not result in
a change of the scope or objectives of the grant.
Changes: None.
Supporting Documentation
Comment: Three commenters inquired whether letters of support
included in the FY 2011 application would need to be resubmitted.
Discussion: Applicants do not need to resubmit letters of support.
Changes: None.
General Comments
Comment: One commenter stated that Focused Investment Area D should
comprehensively address the workforce pipeline and a system of supports
for the early education workforce, including appropriate compensation,
workforce recruitment, preparation, professional development (including
facilitating the pursuit of further credits, degrees, and coursework),
mentoring, and other technical assistance. The commenter also stated
that Focused Investment Area D should foster the retention of
educators, administrators, and education support professionals who
possess postsecondary credentials in, and a deep understanding of,
child development and specialized training in early childhood
education. The commenter further suggested that the program include
sufficient resources to allow teachers and instructional assistants to
obtain the requisite credentials without compromising quality of
education and without increasing costs for families. Finally, the
commenter suggested that this criterion encourage the maintenance of a
strong core licensing and monitoring system that ensures the health and
safety of children in all child care settings.
Discussion: As previously stated, the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012 specifically authorizes the Departments to
make awards on the basis of previously submitted applications, and this
is the approach provided for in these final requirements. As such, the
Departments are not changing any of the program requirements,
priorities, or selection criteria from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
However, the Departments note that the proposals described by this
commenter are generally consistent with the requirements and
definitions provided in Focused Investment Area D of the FY 2011
application. For example, the FY 2011 application included criteria
that supported the establishment of a statewide system of credentials
and degrees aligned with a Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework, alignment of professional development opportunities with
that Framework, increasing access for educators to effective
professional development, and policies and
[[Page 58306]]
incentives to improve retention and career advancement. Core Area B
addresses the importance of a high-quality plan for rating and
monitoring early learning programs participating in the TQRIS.
Changes: None.
Final Requirements
The Secretary announces the following requirements for Phase 2 of
the RTT-ELC program. Except where otherwise indicated in these final
requirements, the applicable final requirements and definitions of key
terms from the notice inviting applications, published in the Federal
Register on August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564), apply to the Phase 2 RTT-ELC
application process.
I. Award Process: To receive a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award, an eligible
applicant must submit--
(a) An application, consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application, that--
(1) Meets the application requirements described in the Application
Requirements section; and
(2) Provides the assurances described in the Application Assurances
section; and
(b) For review and approval by both Departments, a detailed plan
and budget describing the activities selected from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application that would be implemented with Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding, in
accordance with the Budget Requirements section.
Note: We encourage eligible applicants to partner with each
other and currently funded RTT-ELC grantees in carrying out specific
activities (such as validation of a State's TQRIS, implementation of
longitudinal data systems, or development of a kindergarten entry
assessment). Each eligible applicant may apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC
awards individually or as a member of a consortium (with other
eligible applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127-129. A consortium can be
formed only with other eligible applicants and requires a single
application. A partnership can be described in the application of an
individual State or a consortium and can include eligible applicants
as well as currently-funded grantees. In any event, an eligible
applicant must propose activities for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program
that are consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
II. Eligibility Requirements: Eligible applicants for Phase 2 RTT-
ELC awards are those States that applied for funding under the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition and received approximately 75 percent or more of
the available points but that did not receive grant awards under that
competition. Therefore, only the States of Colorado, Illinois, New
Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin are eligible to apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC
awards.
III. Application Requirements: Eligible applicants must meet the
following requirements to receive Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards:
(a) Each eligible applicant must describe how it would implement an
organizational structure for managing the Phase 2 RTT-ELC grant that is
consistent with the activities and commitments described in response to
selection criterion A(3)(a)(1) \1\ of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application,
and describe how it would implement the activities described in
response to Core Area B (selection criteria one through five) of its FY
2011 RTT-ELC application using a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award. The FY 2011
RTT-ELC Core Area B criteria promote broad participation in the State's
TQRIS across a range of programs, active and continuous program quality
improvement, and the publication of program ratings so that families
can make informed decisions about which programs can best serve the
needs of their children. Specifically, in Core Area B of its FY 2011
RTT-ELC application, each applicant had to demonstrate that it had
developed and adopted, or had a high-quality plan to develop and adopt,
a TQRIS. In addition, each eligible applicant must also implement the
activities it proposed under Competitive Preference Priority 2,
including all early learning and development programs in the TQRIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The selection criteria from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application
can be found in the Notice inviting applications for the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition, published in the Federal Register on August 26,
2011 (76 FR 53564) and at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2011-412.doc (pp. 26-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) In addition to addressing the requirements in paragraph (a) of
this section, each eligible applicant must select and describe how it
will implement activities that it identified in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application in response to Focused Investment Areas C, D, or E. The
eligible applicant must select activities from two or more of the three
Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E, and the activities must be
responsive to one or more of the selection criteria under the Focused
Investment Areas chosen by the applicant. (Eligible applicants may
implement additional activities proposed under more than one selection
criterion within each Focused Investment Area.) In determining which
selection criteria to address given the amount of available funds under
Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program, each eligible applicant must give
consideration to those activities that will have the greatest impact on
improving access to high-quality early learning programs for children
with high needs.
Note: In light of the reduced funding available, applicants may
make adjustments in the scope of services provided to meet selection
criteria in Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, Competitive
Preference Priority 2, and Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E. For
example, an applicant may propose to serve fewer programs or regions
of the State than it proposed to serve in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application. The eligible applicant must provide a detailed
explanation of its rationale for such adjustments and also must
amend its targets in tables B(2)(c) and B(4)(c)(1-2) of the FY 2011
RTT-ELC application, as needed. The adjustments may not diminish the
program's impact on improving access to high-quality early learning
programs for children with high needs. In addition, if the scope of
work is adjusted by targeting specific regions in the State, the
activities must be consistent across regions. In making these
adjustments, the Departments strongly encourage eligible applicants
to consider how to use other appropriate Federal, State, private,
and local resources to support their selected activities.
(c) In addition, each eligible applicant may implement the
activities it proposed in response to the Invitational Priorities from
its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Eligible applicants that wrote to
Invitational Priority 2 are encouraged to enter into public-private
partnerships to the extent that doing so would augment total funds
available for carrying out the activities described in their FY 2011
RTT-ELC applications.
Note: We encourage grantees to enter into consortia, where
relevant, in order to maximize the use of available funds. Please
refer to section (V)(b).
(d) The Departments will use Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding to support
only those activities included in an eligible applicant's FY 2011 RTT-
ELC application. Therefore, an eligible applicant must not include new
activities in its Phase 2 RTT-ELC application.
(e) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include current
signatures by the eligible applicant's Governor or an authorized
representative signing on behalf of the Governor; an authorized
representative from the eligible applicant's Lead Agency; and an
authorized representative from each Participating State Agency.
(f) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include a newly-signed
Memorandum of Understanding and a preliminary scope of work for each
Participating State Agency.
IV. Application Assurances: Each eligible applicant must include in
its Phase 2 RTT-ELC application the following assurances from its
Governor
[[Page 58307]]
or authorized representative of the Governor of its State:
(a) While the State may make appropriate adjustments to the scope,
budget, timelines, and performance targets, consistent with the reduced
amount of funding that is available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award
process, the State will maintain consistency with the absolute priority
and meet all program and eligibility requirements of the FY 2011 RTT-
ELC competition.
(b) The State must update tables 1-5 from section (A)(1) of its FY
2011 application. In addition, if the State has made any significant
changes to the commitments, financial investments, numbers of children
served, legislation, policies, practices, or other key areas of the
program described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application, it must
submit an explanation of those changes, including updates to tables 6-
13 from section (A)(1) as needed.
The State will maintain, in a manner consistent with its updates to
tables 1-13, its commitment to and investment in high-quality,
accessible early learning and development programs and services for
children with high needs, as described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011
RTT-ELC application.
(c) Subject to adjustments due to the reduced amount of funding
available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process, the State will
maintain its plan to establish strong participation and commitment by
Participating State Agencies and other early learning and development
stakeholders as described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application.
(d) The State will maintain its commitment to integrating and
aligning resources and policies across Participating State Agencies as
described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(e) The State will comply with all of the accountability,
transparency, and reporting requirements that applied to the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition. (See the notice inviting applications for the FY
2011 RTT-ELC competition, published in the Federal Register on August
26, 2011 (76 FR 53564).)
(f) The State will comply with the requirements of any evaluation
of the RTT-ELC program, or of specific activities it proposes to pursue
as part of the program, conducted and supported by the Departments.
V. Budget Requirements: An eligible applicant may apply for up to
50 percent of the funds it requested in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application. The following budget requirements apply to the Phase 2
RTT-ELC award process:
(a) Budget Narrative. Each eligible applicant must submit a
detailed narrative and budget, using the format and instructions
provided in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application package, which describes
the activities it has selected from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application
that it proposes to implement with a Phase 2 RTT-ELC award. This
detailed narrative must include an explanation of why the eligible
applicant has selected these activities and why the eligible applicant
believes they will have the greatest impact on advancing its high-
quality plan for early learning. The narrative must also explain where
the applicant has made adjustments (such as, a reduction in the number
of participating programs or areas of the State served, or the
dedication of additional Federal, State, local, or private funds to
support the plan) to ensure that the activities can be carried out
successfully with the amount of funds available. In reviewing the
narrative, we may request that the applicant submit revisions to
address concerns related to feasibility or the strategic use of funds.
(See the notice inviting applications for the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition, published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2011 (76
FR 53564).)
(b) Applying as a Consortium. As discussed previously, we encourage
eligible applicants to form consortia with each other or partner with
currently funded FY 2011 RTT-ELC grantees in carrying out specific
activities (such as validation of a State's TQRIS, implementation of
longitudinal data systems, or development of a kindergarten entry
assessment). Eligible applicants may apply individually or as members
of a consortium (with other eligible applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127-
129. A consortium can be formed only with other eligible applicants and
requires a single application. A partnership can be described in the
application of an individual State or a consortium and can include
eligible applicants as well as currently-funded grantees. Each eligible
applicant must propose activities consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC
application. Therefore, each eligible applicant that chooses to apply
as a member of a consortium or to partner with a current RTT-ELC
grantee in carrying out project activities must include in its revised
budget narrative an explanation of how the activities to be undertaken
by the consortium or partnership are consistent with the applicant's FY
2011 RTT-ELC application and how the consortium or partnership will
help the applicant implement its selected activities. It is important
to note that an applicant may propose some activities that it would
execute alone and others that it would execute as part of a consortium.
(c) Available Funds. The maximum amounts of funding for which each
eligible applicant may apply are shown in the following table. The
amounts in this table are based on the requirement that each eligible
applicant may apply for up to half of the amount it requested in its FY
2011 RTT-ELC application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Maximum amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado................................................ $29,925,888
Illinois................................................ 34,798,696
New Mexico.............................................. 25,000,000
Oregon.................................................. 20,508,902
Wisconsin............................................... 22,701,389
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these requirements, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or local programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This regulatory action will have an annual effect on the economy of
more than $100 million because the amount of government transfers
through the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process exceeds that amount.
Therefore, this action is ``economically significant'' and subject to
review by OMB review under
[[Page 58308]]
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding this
determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits--both
quantitative and qualitative--of this regulatory action and have
determined that the benefits will justify the costs.
The Departments have also reviewed these requirements under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these requirements only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Departments believe
these requirements are consistent with the principles in Executive
Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action will 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 potential costs and benefits, net budget
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as
regulatory alternatives we considered.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These requirements are needed to implement the Phase 2 RTT-ELC
award process in the manner that the Departments believe will best
enable the program to achieve its objectives--to create the conditions
for effective reform in early learning systems in States that had high-
scoring applications in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition but that did
not receive funding in that competition, so that they can implement key
elements of their comprehensive reform proposals submitted as part of
their FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition applications.
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs
and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these
requirements will not impose significant additional costs to State
applicants or the Federal Government. Most of the requirements
contained in this notice involve re-affirming State commitments and
plans already completed as part of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition or
other Federal education programs. Similarly, other requirements, in
particular those related to maintaining conditions for reform required
under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, require continuation of existing
commitments and investments rather than the imposition of additional
burdens and costs. The Departments believe those States that are
eligible for Phase 2 awards will incur minimal costs in developing
plans and budgets for implementing selected activities from their FY
2011 RTT-ELC competition proposals, because in most cases such planning
will entail only revisions to existing plans and budgets already
developed as part of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application process and not
the development and implementation of entirely new plans and budgets.
In all cases, the Departments believe that the benefits resulting from
the requirements for the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process will exceed
their costs.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
An alternative to promulgation of these requirements would have
been to use FY 2012 Race to the Top funds to make awards to the one or
two highest scoring unfunded applications from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition and to use the remaining funds for the Race to the Top
District competition to be held in FY 2012. We concluded that
approximately $400 million in available FY 2012 funds is necessary to
support a meaningful district-level competition.
Moreover, the Departments believe that simply funding the one or
two highest scoring applicants that were not selected in the FY 2011
RTT-ELC competition would result in a missed opportunity to reward the
efforts of other high-scoring applicants from that competition and to
enable them to make meaningful progress on key elements of their State
early learning plans.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
Federal payments to be made to States under this program as a result of
this regulatory action. Expenditures are classified as transfers to
States.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............ $132,934,875.
From Whom To Whom? Federal Government to
States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process will provide approximately $133
million in competitive grants to eligible applicants (those five
applicants that did not receive funding in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC
competition, but which received approximately 75 percent or more of the
available points under the competition).
Waiver of Congressional Review Act
These requirements have been determined to be a major rule for
purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.).
Generally, under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days after the
date on which the rule is published in the Federal Register. Section
808(2) of the CRA, however, provides that any rule which an agency for
good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of
reasons therefore in the rule issued) that notice and public
[[Page 58309]]
procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.
These final requirements are needed to implement the Phase 2 RTT-
ELC program, authorized under Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), as
amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of Public Law 112-10, the
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012, which
was signed into law on December 23, 2011. The Department must award
funds under this authority to qualified applicants by December 31,
2012, or the funds will lapse. Even on an expedited timeline, it is
impracticable for the Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed
effective date for the final requirements and make grant awards to
qualified applicants by the December 31, 2012 deadline. When the 60-day
delayed effective date is added to the time the Department will need to
receive applications (approximately 45 days), review the applications
(approximately 21 days), and finally approve applications
(approximately 28 days), the Department will not be able to award funds
authorized under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012
to applicants by December 31, 2012. The Department has therefore
determined that, pursuant to section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day
delay in the effective date generally required for congressional review
is impracticable, contrary to the public interest, and waived for good
cause.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These final requirements contain information collection
requirements. However, because the eligible applicants for Phase 2 RTT-
ELC awards are fewer than 10, these collections are not subject to
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)(i)).
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 is
available via the Federal Digital System at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this
site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of
these Departments 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 these Departments published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by these Departments.
Dated: September 17, 2012.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education.
George Sheldon,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-23259 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P