On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m., the full Advisory Board meeting will take place beginning with introductory remarks provided by the Chair of the Advisory Board and the USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics. Throughout the day remarks will be made by internal and external USDA sources with expertise on subjects relevant to the Board's role as an Advisory Board on research, extension, education, and economics. Following adjournment of the meeting, an evening reception will be held from 6 p.m.-8 p.m. with a guest speaker presenting remarks on a similar subject. Specific agenda items will include a discussion panel on formal Cooperatives for inter and intra agency collaboration on research, and a session related to future funding recommendations for Research, Education, and Economics programs.

On Thursday, March 31, 2010, the Board will reconvene at 8 a.m. to discuss initial recommendations resulting from the meeting, future planning for the Board, and to finalize Board business. The Board Meeting will adjourn by 12 p.m. (noon).

Opportunity for public comment will be offered each day of the meeting, and all portions of the meeting are open to the public. Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed for the public record before and up to two weeks following the Board meeting (by the close of business on Thursday, April 14, 2011). All statements will become a part of the official record of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office.

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Welcome and introductions; (2) Project Presentations/Questions-Answers; (3) review and ranking of projects submitted for Round 1; (4) next meeting agenda, location, and date.

The Del Norte County RAC will discuss how to monitor recommended projects and will vote on projects to recommend for funding. The meeting is open to the public and there will also be a public comment opportunity.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that Rural Development Utilities Programs is submitting to OMB for approval.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Michele Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA-Rural Utilities Service, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax: (202) 720-3485.

Title: Request for Mail List Data, RUS Form 87.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0051.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The RUS Form 87 is used for both the Rural Development Electric and Telecommunications programs to obtain the names and addresses of the borrowers' officials with whom they must communicate directly in order to administer the Agency's lending programs. Changes occurring at the borrower's annual meeting ( e.g., the selection of board members, managers, attorneys, certified public accountants, or other officials) make necessary the collection of information. Hours are being reduced in the information collection package to accurately reflect the current number of respondents.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .25 hour per response.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,150.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 288 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Joyce McNeil, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-0812. Fax: (202) 720-3485. E-mail: joyce.mcneil@wdc.usda.gov.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

On August 31, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274 (August 31, 2010). The current deadline for the preliminary results of review is April 2, 2011.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of PET Film from Taiwan within this time limit. Specifically, the Department granted an extension until March 2, 2011 for Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation to submit its supplemental questionnaire response. We will need additional time to review and analyze the supplemental questionnaire response when it is submitted. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review from 245 days to 365 days; i.e., from April 2, 2011, until July 31, 2011.

However, July 31, 2011 falls on a Sunday, and it is the Department's long-standing practice to issue a determination the next business day when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other day when the Department is closed. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the deadline for the completion of these preliminary results is now no later than August 1, 2011.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Department published the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation on April 15, 2005. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 70 FR 19930 (April 15, 2005). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted the sunset review of this order on March 1, 2010. See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 75 FR 9160 (March 1, 2010); Magnesium From China and Russia, 75 FR 9252 (March 1, 2010). As a result of its sunset review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked. See Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 38983 (July 7, 2010).

On February 10, 2011, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Magnesium From China and Russia, 76 FR 11813 (March 3, 2011), and USITC Publication 4214 (February 2011), entitled Magnesium from China and Russia: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1071-1072 (Review).

The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal (also referred to as magnesium), which includes primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by the order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium, including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra-pure” magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.”

The scope of the order excludes: (1) Magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (2) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 1

The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.

As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is April 15, 2010 ( i.e., the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the antidumping duty order).

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 15 days after publication of this notice, to terminate the suspension of liquidation of merchandise subject to the order which was entered, or withdrawn, for consumption on or after April 15, 2010, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.

This revocation pursuant to five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Ad Hoc Reef Fish Limited Access Privilege Program Advisory Panel will meet to discuss charter for-hire days-at-sea and headboat individual fishing quota pilot programs, and, fishing communities in fisheries management.

Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Trish Kennedy at the Council ( see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

NMFS received an application on November 4, 2010, from the USFWS for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a capture-recapture program of polar bears in the U.S. Chukchi Sea. NMFS reviewed the USFWS' application and identified a number of issues requiring further clarification. After addressing comments from NMFS, the USFWS modified its application and submitted a revised application on November 16, 2010.

In response to the need for information on the Chukchi-Bering Seas polar bear population, the USFWS initiated a capture-based research program starting in 2008 on the sea ice off the Chukchi Sea coastline. Captures occur on the sea ice up to 100 mi (161 km) offshore of the Alaskan coastline between Shishmaref and Cape Lisburne ( see Figure 1 in the USFWS' application). Take of ice seals may occur when the helicopter flies over the seals hauled out on the ice. The USFWS has requested to take ringed and bearded seals by Level B harassment only.

In 2008, the USFWS started a capture-recapture program of polar bears in the Chukchi-Bering Seas to begin to obtain information on bear health, body condition, movement patterns, habitat use, and demography. This work was initiated in response to the need for information to inform management (particularly the setting of harvest quotas) under the U.S.-Russia treaty that was implemented in 2008, identify appropriate mitigation for oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea lease sale area, and the need to better monitor this population due to the listing of polar bears as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Each spring, the USFWS conducts a 6-8 week period of polar bear captures on the sea ice off the U.S. Chukchi Sea coastline. A fixed wing and a Bell 206 Long-ranger helicopter are flown 300 ft (91.4 m) above the sea ice to track and locate polar bears for capture. The flyover area to locate polar bears includes ice seal habitat, and ice seals are frequently encountered hauled out on the sea ice at breathing holes or cracks. Polar bear capture operations will occur daily, as weather permits, between mid-March and the first week of May 2011. The period of validity of the IHA is until the end of May 2011 (to allow for some flexibility in case of bad weather or other unforeseen delays). During a typical capture season over the past 3 years, this has resulted in 28-30 flight days and less than 200 flight hours per season. These overflights at altitudes of approximately 300 ft (91.4 m) over sea ice where seals are hauled out may result in the Level B harassment of ringed and bearded seals. Additional details on the purpose and protocols for the polar bear capture-recapture program were contained in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 330, January 4, 2011). No changes have been made to the proposed activities.

A Notice of Proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2011 (76 FR 330) for public comment. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received one letter from the Marine Mammal Commission. No other organizations or private citizens provided comments on the proposed issuance of an IHA for this activity. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. NMFS has included all of the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 330, January 4, 2011) in the issued IHA.

The Chukchi Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including: bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, humpback, and fin whales; harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, spotted, and bearded seals; narwhals; polar bears; and walruses. However, during the time period of the USFWS' activity, none of the cetacean species are anticipated to be in the project area. Additionally, ribbon and spotted seals are not anticipated to be found in the project area. These species tend to range further south in the Bering Sea and Bristol Bay during the March to May timeframe for activity by the USFWS. During the last 3 years of flights for this polar bear capture program, the USFWS has not seen any ribbon or spotted seals. Because these two species and the cetacean species mentioned here are not found in the Chukchi Sea during this time of year, they are not considered further in this IHA notice. The polar bear and walrus are managed by the USFWS and are not considered further in this IHA notice.

Ringed and bearded seals are the two species likely to be encountered during the proposed activity. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a notice of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476) and a notice of proposed threatened and not warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the Federal Register . Neither species is considered depleted under the MMPA.

Information on the status, distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of ringed and bearded seals can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and the recently completed status reviews of the ringed and bearded seals. The 2009 and 2010 Draft Alaska SARs are available on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2009.pdf and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2010_draft.pdf, respectively. The ringed seal status review report by Kelly et al. (2010) can be found on the Internet at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/ringed/statusreview10.pdf. The bearded seal status review report by Cameron et al. (2010) can be found on the Internet at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/bearded/statusreview10.pdf. The Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 330, January 4, 2011) contained a brief overview on the distribution of ringed and bearded seals in the project area.

Potential effects to marine mammals could involve both acoustic and non-acoustic effects. It is uncertain if the seals react to the sound of the helicopter or to its physical presence flying overhead. Pinnipeds are able to hear both in-water and in-air sounds. However, they have significantly different hearing capabilities in the two media. For this activity, only in-air hearing capabilities will be potentially impacted. The functional hearing range for pinnipeds in-air is 75 Hz to 30 kHz (Southall et al., 2007). Richardson et al. (1995) note that dominant tones in noise spectra from both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are generally below 500 Hz. Kastak and Schustermann (1995) state that the in-air hearing sensitivity is less than the in-water hearing sensitivity for pinnipeds. In-air hearing sensitivity deteriorates as frequency decreases below 2 kHz, and generally pinnipeds appear to be considerably less sensitive to airborne sounds below 10 kHz than humans. There is a dearth of information on acoustic effects of helicopter overflights on pinniped hearing and communication (Richardson et al., 1995) and to NMFS' knowledge, there has been no specific documentation of temporary threshold shift (TTS), let alone permanent threshold shift (PTS), in free-ranging pinnipeds exposed to helicopter operations during realistic field conditions.

The Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 330, January 4, 2011) contained a full discussion of the typical reactions of hauled out pinnipeds to aircraft flying overhead. Typical reactions of hauled out pinnipeds to aircraft that have been observed include looking up at the aircraft, moving on the ice or land, entering a breathing hole or crack in the ice, or entering the water. Based on the available data and studies described in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 330, January 4, 2011), any ringed or bearded seals found in the vicinity of the project are only anticipated to have short-term behavioral reactions to the helicopter flying overhead. Those animals that do dive into a breathing hole or crack in the ice are anticipated to return to the ice shortly after the helicopter leaves the area, as the aircraft generally stays within the same area less than seconds. Hearing impairment ( i.e., TTS or PTS) of pinnipeds hauled out on the ice is not anticipated as a result of the USFWS' activity because pinnipeds will likely either dive into breathing holes or the water through cracks in the ice before the helicopter would be close enough to cause such an effect. The inclusion of the mitigation measures described later in this document (see the “Mitigation” section) are anticipated to reduce impacts even further.

The USFWS' activity is not anticipated to have any temporary or permanent effects on the habitat of ringed and bearded seals. The aircraft lands on various areas on the sea ice a few times per day when bears are captured. This makes no modification to the habitat, and landings are always well away from any ice seals in the area. The activity is not expected to result in any physical damage to marine mammal habitat or to prey species upon which they depend. Additionally, while some seals may cease hauling out on the ice and enter a breathing hole or crack in the ice at the time the helicopter flies overhead, it is anticipated that the individuals will return to hauling out on the ice shortly after the aircraft passes. Overall, the activity is not expected to cause significant impacts on habitats used by the marine mammal species in the project area or on the food sources that they utilize.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

The following mitigation measures are included in the IHA. Protocols for flights include maintaining a 1 mi (1.61 km) radius when flying over areas where seals are concentrated in groups of 5 or more, such as cracks or areas of thin ice with multiple breathing holes, except when needed to do so for safety reasons. USFWS will not land on ice within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of a hauled out seal. USFWS will also fly at altitudes higher than 300 ft (91.4 m) when closer to shore, unless personnel safety prohibits flying at this lower altitude, as polar bears are less likely to be found within 30 mi (48 km) of the coast. This will reduce impacts to seals hauled out on ice closer to shore but at the same time will not jeopardize the objectives of the project.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the required mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses is discussed later in this document ( see “Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses” section).

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

The USFWS will have two biologists and one pilot onboard the helicopter during each flight. During the course of the capture efforts, USFWS will devote a staff member to monitoring the number of seals encountered and species continuously throughout the flights, with the exception of when they are following polar bear tracks or have initiated a polar bear capture. In addition, USFWS will conduct dedicated monitoring over 1 hour time periods daily and record age group (when possible, but at a minimum pups vs. adult females; adult male bearded seals can be identified) and the type of reaction ( i.e., tracking helicopter, moving on ice, entering water, etc.). The other biologist and the pilot will continue searching for polar bears to capture. These flights will continue to occur at 300 ft (91.4 m) altitude. Surveys will occur on days that vary in weather conditions since the number of seals encountered greatly depends on weather, including temperature, cloud cover, and wind speed.

USFWS will submit a report to NMFS within 90 days of completing the activity. The report will include a description of the activities that were conducted, the methods and results of the ice seal monitoring, marine mammal sightings, estimates of the number of seals encountered, and seal reactions to the activity.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral harassment is anticipated to occur as a result of the USFWS' polar bear capture-recapture program. Anticipated take of marine mammals is associated with either the sound or presence of the helicopter overhead (or both). No injury or mortality is anticipated, and no takes by injury or mortality are authorized.

Based on results of the last 3 years of conducting the polar bear capture-recapture program, the USFWS estimates that they may have had as many as 1,000 encounters with ringed seals and 200 encounters with bearded seals annually. The USFWS estimates that the number of seals that may be taken by harassment is 500 ringed seals and 100 bearded seals. This is based on their estimate of the number of seals encountered during previous work over the past 3 years and the research of Born et al. (1999) in which approximately 50% of all seals responded to helicopters at a similar altitude. It is possible that the same seal can be taken by harassment multiple times during the course of the 6-8 weeks needed to complete the proposed activity. Age and sex of the seals are not always known, but likely include all sex and age classes. Female ringed and bearded seals give birth on the sea ice between mid-March and May (the timeframe for this activity).

NMFS has authorized the take of 500 ringed seals and 100 bearded seals during the course of the activity. This is based on the approximate number of individual animals that may be in the activity area and the study by Born et al. (1999), which found that about half of the observed ringed seals escaped ( i.e., left the ice) as a response to a helicopter flying at 492 ft (150 m) altitude. The take estimates presented here do not take into consideration the required mitigation and monitoring measures described earlier in this document.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.

No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of the USFWS' polar bear capture-recapture program. Takes will be limited to Level B behavioral harassment over a 6-8 week period from mid-March to early May. As stated previously, NMFS estimates that 1,000 ringed seal and 200 bearded seal takes may occur as a result of the activity. It is possible that some individual animals may be taken more than once during the course of the activity. However, with the exception of habitats near the USFWS' base location on the coast, flights rarely occur repeatedly over the same areas. The USFWS monitors the prior week's tracklogs to ensure that they continue to search new habitat each day, which likely results in few individuals being disturbed repeatedly during the course of their activities.

The ringed seal breeding and pupping seasons occur during the same time as the USFWS' action. Mating occurs primarily under the ice in late April and early May. Females give birth to a single pup in a subnivian lair on the landfast or pack ice from mid-March to mid-April. The bearded seal breeding season typically occurs from about mid-March to mid-June. Mating occurs in the water. In the Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait (the location of this action), the bearded seal pupping season typically occurs in late April, but it can occur anytime between mid-March and early May. Since mating occurs either under the ice or in the water, typical reactions of seals to helicopter overflights ( e.g., leaving the ice, entering lairs) while hauled out on the ice would not occur. The animals would already be off of the exposed ice.

The USFWS' activity is not expected to have significant, negative effects on pupping in the area. Ringed seals nurse their pups in the subnivian lairs. Therefore, the mother/pup pairs would not be out on the ice when the helicopter flies overhead during nursing. Bearded seals nurse their pups on the ice. However, detailed studies on bearded seal mothers show they forage extensively, diving shallowly (<33 ft, 10 m) and spend only about 10% of their time hauled out with pups and the remainder nearby at the surface or diving (Holsvik, 1998; Krafft et al., 2000). Despite the relative independence of mothers and pups, their bond is described as strong, with females being unusually tolerant of threats in order to remain or reunite with pups (Krylov et al., 1964; Burns and Frost, 1979; Hammill et al., 1994; Lydersen et al., 1994). Therefore, it is not expected that the USFWS' activities will have major impacts during the ringed or bearded seals' pupping seasons.

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). While it is possible that flights could occur on consecutive days, the flight schedule is weather dependent. Additionally, even if flights do occur on consecutive days, it is unlikely that the flight paths will be identical on consecutive days. Therefore, it is unlikely that hauled out seals will be exposed to the overflights on consecutive days. Moreover, since the helicopters only remain overhead for a few seconds at any one location, impacts lasting minutes to even hours are not expected.

On December 10, 2010, ringed and bearded seals were proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA (75 FR 77476; 75 FR 77496). Neither species is designated as depleted under the MMPA.

Although a reliable minimum population estimate is not currently available for the Alaska stock of ringed seals, the 2009 NMFS SAR notes a population of approximately 249,000 individuals (Allen and Angliss, 2010). There is no reliable minimum population estimate of the Alaska stock of bearded seals at this time. However, estimates from the 1970s and 1980s of the Bering-Chukchi population of bearded seals range from 250,000 to 300,000 (Popov, 1976 cited in Allen and Angliss, 2010; Burns, 1981 cited in Allen and Angliss, 2010). The take estimates represent 0.2% of the Alaska stock of 249,000 ringed seals and 0.04% of the Alaska stock of 250,000 bearded seals. These estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B harassment if each animal is taken only once.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the helicopter flights during the USFWS' polar bear capture-recapture program will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B behavioral harassment only, and that the total taking from the USFWS' activities will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

The disturbance and potential displacement of marine mammals by sounds from the USFWS' proposed activities are the principal concerns related to subsistence use of the area. Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In rural Alaska, subsistence activities are often central to many aspects of human existence, including patterns of family life, artistic expression, and community religious and celebratory activities. Additionally, the animals taken for subsistence provide a significant portion of the food that will last the community throughout the year. The main species that are hunted include bowhead and beluga whales, ringed, spotted, and bearded seals, walruses, and polar bears. [As mentioned previously in this document, both the walrus and the polar bear are under the USFWS' jurisdiction.] The importance of each of these species varies among the communities and is largely based on availability.

The subsistence communities in the Chukchi Sea that have the potential to be impacted by the USFWS' proposed action include Point Hope and Kivalina. During the spring months that the USFWS' capture work is proposed to be conducted both of these communities hunt bowhead whales and ice seals. Hunting for both bowhead whales and ice seals typically occurs within 15 mi (24 km) or less of the community, according to local residents. At Point Hope, hunters have informed the USFWS that they hunt only to the west and south of Point Hope.

NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as:

Noise and general activity during the USFWS' proposed polar bear program have the potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. The helicopter overflights have the potential to disturb hauled out pinnipeds by causing them to vacate the area, which could potentially make the animals unavailable to subsistence hunters if the animals do not return to the area.

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. Over the past 3 years, as part of this work, the USFWS regularly consults extensively with local communities to identify temporal and spatial no fly zones. These no fly zones occur in areas of subsistence activities. In consultation with local residents, the USFWS has determined that flying to the north and northwest of Point Hope would not interfere with subsistence activities. Therefore, the USFWS will restrict flights to avoid the areas 15 mi (24 km) to the south and west of Point Hope and within a 15 mi (24 km) radius of Kivalina. The majority of the USFWS' polar bear work occurs greater than 30 mi (48 km) offshore, which also minimizes the potential for flights to affect availability of ice seals to local hunters. The USFWS holds two meetings in Point Hope each year (the community in closest proximity to much of the work). For 2011, the USFWS has agreed with local whaling captains and community leaders to have regular, weekly communications to identify no fly zones and ensure that flight paths do not intersect areas of subsistence activity. The USFWS also regularly communicates with the community of Kivalina, although polar bears tend not to be concentrated in close proximity to this community, thus flight paths tend to occur well away from subsistence use areas.

NMFS has determined that the USFWS' polar bear capture-recapture program will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. This determination is supported by the information contained in this document and the POC contained in the USFWS' application ( see ADDRESSES ). The USFWS has agreed to certain no fly zones prior to beginning their activities. Additionally, the USFWS will meet regularly with subsistence use leaders in both Point Hope and Kivalina to redefine the no fly zones throughout the season, if necessary. There will be no impacts to beluga hunting, as this project occurs well before the summer beluga hunts in the Chukchi Sea. Lastly, the majority of the USFWS' flight tracks will occur much further offshore than the typical sites for subsistence sealing during the mid-March to early May time period.

Based on the measures contained in the USFWS' POC, the required mitigation and monitoring measures (described earlier in this document), and the project design itself, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals from the USFWS' polar bear capture-recapture program.

The Arctic subspecies of ringed seal and the Beringia distinct population segment of bearded seals are currently proposed for listing under the ESA. Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires a conference on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under Section 4 of the ESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Permits, Conservation and Education Division determined, after discussion with NMFS, Alaska Regional Office, that the issuance of an IHA to the USFWS for the take of ringed and bearded seals incidental to the proposed polar bear capture-recapture program will not jeopardize the continued existence of either species because of the low level of impact that is anticipated.

On March 3, 2011, NMFS released an EA and issued a FONSI for this action. NMFS determined that issuance of this IHA would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required for this action. NMFS' EA and FONSI are available upon request ( see ADDRESSES ).

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the USFWS for the take of marine mammals incidental to helicopter flights during the USFWS' polar bear capture-recapture program in the U.S. Chukchi Sea, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate ( see ADDRESSES ).

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: Annual Progress Report for the Title III Alternative Financing Program Under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0662.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Affected Public: Federal Government; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government, State Educational Agencies or Local Educational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 33.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 891.

Abstract: Title III of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 as in effect prior to the amendments of 2004 (Pub. L. 105-394) (AT Act of 1998) authorized grants to public agencies to support the establishment and maintenance of alternative financing programs (AFPs) that feature one or more alternative financing mechanisms to enable individuals with disabilities and their family members, guardians, advocates, and authorized representatives to purchase assistive technology (AT). Section 307 of title III requires that RSA submit to Congress an annual report on the activities conducted under that title. In order to meet this requirement, states must provide annual progress reports to Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). This annual report is a web-based data collection system developed based upon the instrument submitted for review herein.

The proposed instrument eliminates an entire section of optional information that is not required for submission by the title III AFP grantees, further reducing the burden from approximately 29.5 hours to 27 hours per state. Section C. AFP Optional Data Elements, which are not title III annual reporting requirements for the AFP grantees, has been proposed for removal from the current instrument. The information collected in this optional data section includes: 1. Types of AFP (partnership loans or revolving loans), 2. Interest Rates (lowest and highest interest rates established by policy), 3. Loan Amounts (lowest and highest loan amounts established by policy), 4. Repayment Terms (shortest and longest repayment terms established by policy), and Loan Guarantee Requirement, the percentage of the loans that must be repaid by the AFP to the lender in case of default as established by the agreement with the lender. Since the data reported under C. AFP Optional Data Elements of the current instrument is not required by title III of the AT Act of 1998, grantees did not report this information uniformly across programs. If every grantee doesn't report in this section, then the data can't be reported in aggregate form. In fact, the data in this section is available in the annual report to Congress on the AT Act, as this optional section contains information about program features and descriptions that may or may not change on an annual basis. Since there is no utility to the annual reporting of this optional information, the decision was made to further reduce the burden to all grantees by eliminating this section from the current instrument in the Management Information Systems.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4540. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title of Collection: Impact Evaluation of Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG).

OMB Control Number: Pending.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Once.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government, State Educational Agencies or Local Educational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,180.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 4,673.

Abstract: This Office of Management and Budget (OMB) package requests clearance for activities to recruit 50 States and the District of Columbia, and up to 825 schools across an estimated 170 districts for inclusion in an evaluation of Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contained substantial funding for systemic education reform. This included $4.35 billion in RTT grants, which were awarded to 11 States and the District of Columbia based both on their education reform plans and their past success in creating the conditions for reform, and $3 billion in additional funding for SIG, which is aimed at implementing one of four school turnaround models (STMs) in the lowest-performing schools. The evaluation is designed to (1) study the implementation of RTT and SIG; (2) analyze the impact of SIG-funded STMs on student outcomes using a regression discontinuity design; (3) analyze the impact of receipt of RTT funds on student outcomes using an interrupted time series design; and (4) investigate the relationship between STM turnaround models (and strategies within those models) and student outcomes in low-performing schools. No data are being collected or analyzed as part of recruitment activities. A second OMB submission will request clearance for the evaluation's data collection, analysis, and reporting activities. This future package will include data collection forms, and burden estimates of the number of respondents and hours of response time.

Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain or from the Department's Web site at http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4468. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title of Collection: Section 704 Annual Performance Report (Parts I and II).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0606.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government, State Educational Agencies or Local Educational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 412.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 14,420.

Abstract: The data collection instruments being submitted are the annual performance reports for State Independent Living Services (SILS) and Centers for Independent Living (CIL) programs. These are known as the 704 Report Part I and the 704 Report Part II, respectively. These reports are required by sections 704(m)(4)(D), 706(d), 721(b)(3) and 725(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act) and the corresponding regulations in 34 CFR parts 364, 365, and 366. Approval of grantees' annual performance reports (704 Report) is a prerequisite for Rehabilitative Services Administration's approval of the annual SILS grant awards (part B funds) and CILs continuation grant awards (part C funds).

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4539. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any 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 in room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: The Promise Neighborhoods program is carried out under the legislative authority of the FIE, title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b). FIE supports nationally significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education at the State and local levels and to help all children meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards.

The purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to transform those communities by—

(1) Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible organizations (as defined in this notice) that are focused on achieving results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood;

(2) Building a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions (continuum of solutions) (as defined in this notice) of both educational programs and family and community supports (both as defined in this notice), with great schools at the center;

(3) Integrating programs and breaking down agency “silos” so that solutions are implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies;

(4) Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources needed to sustain and scale up proven, effective solutions across the broader region beyond the initial neighborhood; and

(5) Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods program and about the relationship between particular strategies in Promise Neighborhoods and student outcomes, including through a rigorous evaluation of the program.

Background: The vision of this program is that all children and youth growing up in Promise Neighborhoods have access to great schools and strong systems of family and community support that will prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully transition to college and a career.

A Promise Neighborhood is both a place and a strategy. A place eligible to become a Promise Neighborhood is a geographic area that is distressed, often facing inadequate access to high-quality early learning programs and services, struggling schools, low high-school and college graduation rates, high unemployment, crime, and indicators of poor health. These conditions contribute to and intensify the negative outcomes associated with children and youth living in poverty. Children who are from low-income families and grow up in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty face educational and life challenges above and beyond the challenges faced by children who are from low-income families who grow up in neighborhoods without a high concentration of poverty. A Federal evaluation of the reading and mathematics outcomes of elementary students in 71 schools in 18 districts and 7 States found that even when controlling for individual student poverty, there is a significant negative association between school-level poverty and student achievement. 1 The evaluation found that students have lower academic outcomes when a higher percentage of their same-school peers qualify for free and reduced-priced lunch (FRPL) compared to when a lower percentage of their same-school peers qualify for FRPL. The compounding effects of neighborhood poverty continue later in life: Another study found that, for children with similar levels of family income, growing up in a neighborhood where the number of families in poverty was between 20 and 30 percent increased the chance of downward economic mobility—moving down the income ladder relative to their parents—by more than 50 percent compared with children who grew up in neighborhoods with under 10 percent of families in poverty. 2

A Promise Neighborhood is also a strategy for addressing the issues in distressed communities. Promise Neighborhoods are led by organizations that work to ensure that all children and youth in the target geographic area have access to the continuum of solutions needed to graduate from high school college- and career-ready. For this reason, each Promise Neighborhood grant must have several core features: Significant need in the neighborhood the grant serves, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions with strong schools at the center, and the capacity to achieve results.

While there are a number of organizations and communities that are working on developing Promise Neighborhoods strategies, these entities are at different stages of readiness to create a Promise Neighborhood. Therefore, we are proposing priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for both planning and implementation grants. The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria are different for planning grant and implementation grant applicants, while the proposed definitions apply to both groups of applicants.

Planning grants would support eligible organizations that need to develop feasible plans to create a continuum of solutions with the potential to significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of children and youth in a neighborhood. These grants would support eligible organizations that demonstrate the need for implementation of a Promise Neighborhood strategy in the geographic areas they are targeting, a sound strategy for developing a feasible plan, and the capacity to develop the plan.

Under proposed Absolute Priority 1 for planning grants, Promise Neighborhoods planning grantees would undertake the following activities during the planning year:

(1) Conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice) of children and youth in the neighborhood.

(2) Develop a plan to deliver a continuum of solutions with the potential to drive results. This includes building community support for and involvement in the development of the plan.

(3) Establish effective partnerships both to provide solutions along the continuum and to commit resources to sustain and scale up what works.

(4) Plan, build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data system that will provide information that the grantee will use for learning, continuous improvement, and accountability.

(5) Participate in a community of practice (as defined in this notice).

Implementation grants would support eligible organizations in carrying out their plans to create a continuum of solutions that will significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of children and youth in the target neighborhood. These grants would aid eligible organizations that have developed a plan that demonstrates the need for implementation of a Promise Neighborhood strategy in the geographic area they are targeting, a sound strategy, and the capacity to implement the plan. Specifically, grantees would use implementation grant funds to develop the administrative capacity necessary to successfully implement a continuum of solutions, such as managing partnerships, integrating multiple funding sources, and supporting the data system. The majority of resources to provide solutions within the continuum of solutions would come from existing public and private funding sources that are integrated and aligned with the Promise Neighborhoods strategy.

Under proposed Absolute Priority 1 for implementation grants, Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees would undertake the following activities during the implementation years:

(1) Implement a continuum of solutions that addresses neighborhood challenges, as identified in a needs assessment and segmentation analysis, and that will improve results for children and youth in the neighborhood.

(2) Continue to build and strengthen partnerships that will provide solutions along the continuum of solutions and that will commit resources to sustain and scale up what works.

(3) Collect data on indicators at least annually, and use and improve a data system for learning, continuous improvement, and accountability.

(4) Demonstrate progress on goals for improving systems, such as by making changes in policies and organizations, and by leveraging resources to sustain and scale up what works.

(5) Participate in a community of practice.

The intent of these priorities is to ensure that program funds are used by organizations with the capacity to achieve a core set of results for children and youth, improve systems to support achievement of the results, and leverage these and other resources to sustain and scale up what works. We are also proposing definitions that would clarify some of the terms used in the priorities and selection criteria, and selection criteria that would be used by peer reviewers to evaluate (a) The need in a neighborhood that would be served through a proposed project, (b) an organization's strategy to build a continuum of solutions, and (c) an organization's capacity to do the work effectively and efficiently. We are interested in receiving comments about the proposed priorities, definitions, and selection criteria. In particular, we are interested in whether the proposed indicators of need (as defined in this notice) in Absolute Priority 1 and in the selection criteria are the most appropriate indicators for ensuring that grantees serve neighborhoods with significant educational and family and community support needs. We also are interested in your comments about how to ensure that grantees implement strategies that address the needs in the targeted neighborhood; implement solutions that are based on the best available evidence; drive results for children and youth; and improve broader systems in the city and region to support the results. Finally, we are interested in your comments about how to ensure that projects include a management plan that will build an organization's capacity to use data, leverage resources, break down agency “silos,” and create a local infrastructure to sustain and scale up the project beyond the initial neighborhood.

Consistent with the approach of the Promise Neighborhoods program, we believe that it is important for communities to develop a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization strategy that addresses neighborhood assets (as defined in this notice) that are essential to transforming distressed neighborhoods into healthy and vibrant communities of opportunity. Although not a proposed requirement for planning or implementation applicants, we believe that a Promise Neighborhood will be most successful when it is part of, and contributing to, an area's broader neighborhood revitalization strategy. We believe that only through the development of such comprehensive neighborhood revitalization plans that embrace the coordinated use of programs and resources in order to effectively address the interrelated needs within a community will the broader vision of neighborhood transformation occur.

Because a diverse group of communities could benefit from the Promise Neighborhoods program, the Secretary proposes an absolute priority for applications that propose to serve one or more rural communities only (as defined in this notice) and an absolute priority for applications that propose to serve one or more Indian tribes (as defined in this notice). Child poverty rates in rural areas are higher than in urban areas, 3 and more than one-fifth of the Nation's nearly 2,000 “dropout factories,” in which the graduation rate is less than 60 percent, are located in rural areas. 4 Compared to White students, American Indian students have lower academic outcomes and higher poverty rates. 5 Moreover, American Indian and Alaska Native students have a graduation rate of less than 50 percent nationally. 6

The Secretary also recognizes that a broad set of solutions is required to improve academic and developmental outcomes for children and youth and to transform communities. For that reason, the Secretary proposes priorities for applicants that propose to enhance, expand, or coordinate comprehensive and high-quality local early learning networks, include strategies to increase internet connectivity, improve access to the arts and humanities, or increase the availability of quality affordable housing as part of a strategy that is integrated with neighborhood transformation efforts. In recognition of the important role that adults play in the educational development of children, the Secretary proposes to include, in the FY 2011 competition, a priority for proposals that include a focus on family engagement in learning through adult education.

Finally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is interested in reviewing the applications of Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees that address public safety concerns through strategies that include prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry of offenders back into communities upon release from prison and jail. Further, subject to the availability of FY 2011 funds, DOJ intends to provide some Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees with additional resources from the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program, to pursue their public safety strategies. We anticipate that applicants for a Promise Neighborhoods implementation grant that are also interested in being considered for funding by DOJ will be required to complete application materials for the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program. Additional details regarding the application process and requirements for the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program will be provided in the Promise Neighborhoods notice inviting applications.

Types of Priorities: The Secretary proposes priorities for Promise Neighborhoods planning and implementation grants. The Department may choose to use one or more of these priorities in any year in which we hold a competition for the Promise Neighborhoods program. We propose to require that all applicants for planning and implementation grants indicate in their application whether they are applying under Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute Priority 3. An applicant that applies under Absolute Priority 2 but is not eligible for funding under Absolute Priority 2, or applies under Absolute Priority 3 but is not eligible for funding under Absolute Priority 3, would be considered for funding under Absolute Priority 1.

If one or more of proposed Planning Priorities 4 through 8 or proposed Implementation Priorities 4 through 8 are included in a notice inviting applications, the priority or priorities that are included in the notice would be designated as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priorities in that notice for the purposes of the competition for which the notice is inviting applications. We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, to include the substance of these priorities in the selection criteria.

Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well 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)). With an invitational priority, we would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over other applications.

For purposes of notices inviting applications, we are considering whether to limit the total number of competitive preference priority points awarded to an applicant in a grant competition or whether to limit the total number of competitive preference priorities we will review and score in a grant competition. We invite comments on these issues to ensure that we are considering a wide variety of perspectives in determining our approach.

We propose establishing a priority for an applicant to submit a proposal for how it will plan to create a Promise Neighborhood. This proposal must describe the need in the neighborhood, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions, and the applicant's capacity to achieve results. Specifically, an applicant must—

(1) Describe the geographically defined area to be served and the level of distress in that area based on indicators of need and other relevant indicators. Applicants may propose to serve multiple, non-contiguous geographically defined areas. In cases where target areas are not contiguous, the applicant must explain its rationale for including non-contiguous areas;

(2) Describe how it will plan to build a continuum of solutions based on the best available evidence including, where available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) designed to significantly improve educational outcomes and to support the healthy development and well-being of children and youth in the neighborhood. 7 The success of the strategy will be based on the results, measured against the project indicators as defined in this notice and described in Table 1 and Table 2. The strategy must describe how the applicant will determine which solutions within the continuum of solutions to implement, and must include—

(a) High-quality early learning programs and services designed to improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined in this notice) for children from birth through third grade;

(b) Ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that are linked to improved educational outcomes for children and youth in preschool through the 12th grade. Public schools served through the grant may include persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) or low-performing schools (as defined in this notice) that are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools. An applicant may serve an effective school or schools (as defined in this notice) but only if the applicant also serves at least one low-performing school (as defined in this notice) or persistently lowest-achieving school (as defined in this notice). An applicant must identify in its application the public school or schools that it would serve and the current status of reforms in the school or schools, including, if applicable, the type of intervention model being implemented. In cases where an applicant operates a school or partners with a school that does not serve all students in the neighborhood, the applicant must partner with at least one additional school or schools that also serves students in the neighborhood. An applicant proposing to work with a persistently lowest-achieving school must implement one of the four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C of the Race to the Top notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010, 74 FR 59836, 59866 (November 18, 2009).

An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must implement ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace schools, which may include implementing one of the four school intervention models, or may include another model of sufficient ambition, rigor, and comprehensiveness to significantly improve academic and other outcomes for students. An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must use an intervention that addresses the effectiveness of teachers and leaders and the school's use of time and resources, which may include increased learning time (as defined in this notice);

To the extent feasible and appropriate, the plan to be developed by the applicant must describe how the applicant and its partners will leverage and integrate high-quality programs, related public and private investments, and existing neighborhood assets into the continuum of solutions.

Applicants must also describe how they will identify Federal, State, or local policies, regulations, or other requirements that would impede the applicant in achieving its goals and will report on those impediments to the Department and other relevant agencies.

As part of the description of how they will plan to build a continuum of solutions, applicants must describe how they will participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice (as defined in this notice) for Promise Neighborhoods.

(3) Specify how it will conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and segmentation analysis of children and youth in the neighborhood during the planning grant project period and explain how it will use this needs assessment and segmentation analysis to determine the children with the highest needs and ensure that those children receive the appropriate services from the continuum of solutions. This explanation must include identifying and describing in the application both the educational indicators and the family and community support indicators that the applicant will use in conducting the needs assessment during the planning year. During the planning year, applicants must—

(a) Collect data for the educational indicators listed in Table 1 and use them as both program and project indicators;

(b) Collect data for the family and community support indicators in Table 2 and use them as program indicators; and

(c) Collect data for unique family and community support indicators, developed by the applicant, that align with the goals and objectives of projects and use them as project indicators or use the indicators in Table 2 as project indicators.

(4) Describe the experience and lessons learned, and describe how the applicant will build the capacity of its management team and project director in all of the following areas:

(a) Working with the neighborhood and its residents, including with the schools described in paragraph (2) of this priority; the LEA in which the schools described in paragraph (2) are located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other service providers.

(b) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability. The applicant must describe—

(i) Its proposal to plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in order to measure progress on educational and family and community support indicators for all children in the neighborhood, disaggregated by the subgroups listed in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA;

(ii) How the applicant will link the longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and State data systems; make the data accessible to program partners, researchers, and evaluators while abiding by Federal, State, and other privacy laws and requirements; and manage and maintain the system;

(iii) How the applicant will use rapid-time (as defined in this notice) data both in the planning year and, once the Promise Neighborhood strategy is implemented, for continuous program improvement; and

(iv) How the applicant will document the planning process, including by describing lessons learned and best practices;

(c) Creating formal and informal partnerships, for such purposes as providing solutions along the continuum of solutions and attaining resources to sustain and scale up what works. An applicant, as part of its application, must submit a preliminary memorandum of understanding, signed by each organization or agency with which it would partner in planning the proposed Promise Neighborhood. The preliminary memorandum of understanding must describe—

(i) Each partner's financial and programmatic commitment; and

(ii) How each partner's existing vision, theory of change (as defined in this notice), theory of action (as defined in this notice), and existing activities align with those of the proposed Promise Neighborhood strategy;

(d) The governance structure proposed for the Promise Neighborhood, including how the eligible entity's governing board or advisory board is representative of the geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice), and how residents of the geographic area would have an active role in the organization's decision-making; and

(e) Securing and integrating funding streams from multiple public and private sources from the Federal, State, and local level. Examples of public funds include Federal resources from the U.S. Department of Education, such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and title I of the ESEA, and from other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Treasury.

(5) Describe the applicant's commitment to work with the Department and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods to ensure that data collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees. This commitment must include, but need not be limited to—

(a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have access to relevant program and project data (e.g., administrative data and program and project indicator data), including data on a quarterly basis if requested by the Department;

(b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group; and

(c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-participants.

We propose establishing a priority for applicants proposing to develop a plan for implementing a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve one or more rural communities only.

We propose establishing a priority for applicants proposing to develop a plan for implementing a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve one or more Indian tribes (as defined in this notice).

We propose a priority for applicants proposing to develop a plan to expand, enhance, or modify an existing network of early learning programs and services to ensure that they are high-quality and comprehensive for children from birth through the third grade. The plan must also ensure that the network establishes a high standard of quality across early learning settings and is designed to improve health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes of young children. Distinct from the early learning solutions described in paragraph (2) of Absolute Priority 1, this priority would support proposals to develop plans that coordinate all early learning services and programs in the neighborhood, i.e., school-based early learning programs; district- or State-funded preschool programs; Early Head Start and Head Start; the local child care resource and referral agency, if applicable; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) services and programs; services through private providers; home visiting programs; and family, friend, or neighbor care in the Promise Neighborhood.

The coordinated local early learning network must address, or incorporate ongoing State-level efforts regarding, the major components of high-quality early learning programs and services, such as early learning and development standards, program quality standards, comprehensive assessment systems, workforce and professional development systems, health promotion, family and community engagement, a coordinated data infrastructure, and a method of measuring, monitoring, evaluating, and improving program quality. For example, an applicant might address how the Promise Neighborhoods project will use the State's early learning standards, as applicable, and Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework (Framework), as applicable, to define the expectations of what children should know and be able to do before entering kindergarten. The Framework is available on the Office of Head Start's Web site at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf. Similarly, an applicant that addresses this priority must discuss, where applicable, how the State's Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), professional development and workforce infrastructure, and other State efforts would be incorporated into the Promise Neighborhood's plan for a comprehensive local early learning network.

The proposal to develop a plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local early learning network must describe the governance structure and how the applicant will use the planning year to plan solutions that address the major components of high-quality early learning programs and services as well as establish goals, strategies, and benchmarks to provide early learning programs and services that result in improved outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined in this notice). An applicant addressing this priority must designate an individual responsible for overseeing and coordinating the early learning initiatives and must include a resume or position description and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that the individual designated, or individual hired to fill that designation, possesses the appropriate State certification, and has experience and expertise in managing and administering high-quality early learning programs, including in coordinating across various high-quality early learning programs and services.

We propose a priority for applicants proposing to develop plans to ensure that almost all students in the geographic area proposed to be served have broadband internet access (as defined in this notice) at home and at school, the knowledge and skills to use broadband internet access effectively, and a connected computing device to support schoolwork.

We propose a priority for applicants proposing to develop plans to include opportunities for children and youth to experience and participate actively in the arts and humanities in their community so as to broaden, enrich, and enliven the educational, cultural, and civic experiences available in the neighborhood. Applicants may propose to develop plans for offering these activities in school and in out-of-school settings and at any time during the calendar year.

We propose a priority for applicants proposing to serve geographic areas that were the subject of an affordable housing transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during FY 2009 or later years. Applicants eligible for this priority must either (1) have received a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant or (2) provide a memorandum of understanding with a recipient of Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant. The memorandum must indicate a commitment on the part of both grantees to coordinate planning and align resources to the greatest extent practicable.

We propose a priority for applicants proposing to develop plans that are coordinated with adult education providers serving neighborhood residents, such as those funded through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, as amended. Coordinated services may include adult basic and secondary education and programs that provide training and opportunities for family members and other members of the community to support student learning and establish high expectations for student educational achievement. Examples of services and programs include preparation for the General Education Development (GED) test; English literacy, family literacy, and work-based literacy training; or other training that prepares adults for postsecondary education and careers or supports adult engagement in the educational success of children and youth in the neighborhood.

We propose establishing a priority for applicants that submit a plan to create a Promise Neighborhood. The plan must describe the need in the neighborhood, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions, and the applicant's capacity to achieve results. Specifically, an applicant must—

(1) Describe the geographically defined area to be served and the level of distress in that area based on indicators of need and other relevant indicators. The statement of need in the neighborhood must be based, in part, on results of a comprehensive needs assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice). Applicants may propose to serve multiple, non-contiguous geographically defined areas. In cases where target areas are not contiguous, the applicant must explain its rationale for including non-contiguous areas;

(2) Describe the applicant's strategy for building a continuum of solutions that addresses neighborhood challenges as identified in the needs assessment and segmentation analysis. The continuum of solutions must be based on the best available evidence including, where available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice), and be designed to significantly improve educational outcomes and to support the healthy development and well-being of children and youth in the neighborhood. The success of the strategy will be measured by the results and project indicators as defined in this notice and described in Table 1 and Table 2. The applicant must propose clear and measurable annual goals during the grant period against which improvements will be measured using the indicators. The strategy must—

(a) Identify each solution that the project will implement within the proposed continuum of solutions, and must include—

(i) High-quality early learning programs and services designed to improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined in this notice) for children from birth through third grade;

(ii) Ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that are linked to improved educational outcomes for children and youth in preschool through the 12th grade. Public schools served through the grant may include persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) or low-performing schools (as defined in this notice) that are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools. An applicant may serve an effective school or schools (as defined in this notice) but only if the applicant also serves at least one low-performing school (as defined in this notice) or persistently lowest-achieving school (as defined in this notice). An applicant must identify in its application the public school or schools it would serve and describe the current status of reforms in the school or schools, including, if applicable, the type of intervention model being implemented. In cases where an applicant operates a school or partners with a school that does not serve all students in the neighborhood, the applicant must partner with at least one additional school that also serves students in the neighborhood. An applicant proposing to work with a persistently lowest-achieving school must implement one of the four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C of the Race to the Top notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010, 74 FR 59836, 59866 (November 18, 2009).

An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must implement ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace schools, which may include implementing one of the four school intervention models, or may include another model of sufficient ambition, rigor, and comprehensiveness to significantly improve academic and other outcomes for students. An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must use an intervention that addresses the effectiveness of teachers and leaders and the school's use of time and resources, which may include increased learning time (as defined in this notice);

(iii) Programs that prepare students to be college- and career-ready; and

(iv) Family and community supports (as defined in this notice).

To the extent feasible and appropriate, the plan must describe how the applicant and its partners will leverage and integrate high-quality programs, related public and private investments, and existing neighborhood assets into the continuum of solutions. An application must also include an appendix that summarizes the evidence supporting each proposed solution and describes how the solution is based on the best available evidence, including, where available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice). In addition, an applicant must describe how the solution will be implemented; the partners that will participate in the implementation of each solution (in any case in which the applicant does not implement the solution directly); the estimated per-child cost, including administrative costs, to implement each solution; the estimated number of children, by age, in the neighborhood who will be served by each solution and how a segmentation analysis was used to target the children and youth to be served; and the source of funds that will be used to pay for each solution. In the description of the estimated number of children to be served, the applicant must include the percentage of all children of the same age group within the neighborhood proposed to be served by each solution.

Applicants must also describe how they will identify Federal, State, or local policies, regulations, or other requirements that would impede the applicant in achieving its goals and will report on those impediments to the Department and other relevant agencies.

As part of the description of their strategy to build a continuum of solutions, applicants must describe how they will participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for Promise Neighborhoods.

(b) Establish clear, annual goals for evaluating progress in improving systems, such as changes in policies, environments, or organizations that affect children and youth in the neighborhood. Examples of systems change could include a new school district policy to measure the results of family and community support programs, a new funding resource to support the Promise Neighborhoods strategy, or a cross-sector collaboration at the city level to break down municipal agency “silos” and partner with local philanthropic organizations to drive achievement of a set of results; and

(c) Establish clear, annual goals for evaluating progress in leveraging resources, such as the amount of monetary or in-kind investments from public or private organizations to support the Promise Neighborhoods strategy. Examples of leveraging resources are securing new or existing dollars to sustain and scale up what works in the Promise Neighborhood or integrating high-quality programs in the continuum of solutions. Applicants may consider, as part of their plans to scale up their Promise Neighborhood strategy, serving a larger geographic area by partnering with other applicants to the Promise Neighborhoods program from the same city or region;

(3) Explain how it used its needs assessment and segmentation analysis to determine the children with the highest needs and explain how it will ensure that each child in the neighborhood receives the appropriate services from the continuum of solutions. This includes identifying and describing in its application the educational indicators and family and community support indicators that the applicant used to conduct the needs assessment. Whether or not the implementation grant applicant received a Promise Neighborhoods planning grant, the applicant should describe how it—

(a) Collected data for the educational indicators listed in Table 1 and used them as both program and project indicators;

(b) Collected data for the family and community support indicators in Table 2 and used them as program indicators; and

(c) Collected data for unique family and community support indicators, developed by the applicant, that align with the goals and objectives of the project and used them as project indicators or used the indicators in Table 2 as project indicators.

An applicant must also describe how it will collect at least annual data on the indicators in Tables 1 and 2 and report those data to the Department.

(4) Describe the experience, lessons learned, and a plan to build capacity of the applicant's management team and project director in all of the following areas:

(a) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools described in paragraph (2) of this priority; the LEA in which those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other service providers.

(b) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability. The applicant must describe—

(i) Its longitudinal data system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in order to measure progress on educational and family and community support indicators for all children in the neighborhood, disaggregated by the subgroups listed in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA;

(ii) How the applicant has linked the longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and State data systems; made the data accessible to program partners, researchers, and evaluators while abiding by Federal, State, and other privacy laws and requirements; and managed and maintained the system;

(iii) How the applicant has used rapid-time (as defined in this notice) data in prior years and, how it will continue to use those data once the Promise Neighborhood strategy is implemented, for continuous program improvement; and

(iv) How the applicant will document the implementation process, including by describing lessons learned and best practices.

(c) Creating and strengthening formal and informal partnerships, for such purposes as providing solutions along the continuum of solutions and committing resources to sustaining and scaling up what works. Each applicant must submit, as part of its application, a memorandum of understanding, signed by each organization or agency with which it would partner in implementing the proposed Promise Neighborhood. The memorandum of understanding must describe—

(i) Each partner's financial and programmatic commitment; and

(ii) How each partner's existing vision, theory of change (as defined in this notice), theory of action (as defined in this notice), and current activities align with those of the proposed Promise Neighborhood;

(d) The governance structure proposed for the Promise Neighborhood, including how the eligible entity's governing board or advisory board is representative of the geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice), and how residents of the geographic area would have an active role in the organization's decision-making.

(e) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private sources from the Federal, State, and local level. Examples of public funds include Federal resources from the U.S. Department of Education, such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and title I of the ESEA, and from other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Treasury.

(5) Describe the applicant's commitment to work with the Department and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods to ensure that data collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees. This commitment must include, but need not be limited to—

(a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have access to relevant program and project data sources ( e.g., administrative data and program and project indicator data), including data on a quarterly basis if requested by the Department;

(b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group (as defined in this notice); and

(c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-participants.

We propose establishing a priority for applicants that propose to implement a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) serves one or more rural communities only.

We propose establishing a priority for applicants proposing to implement a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) serves one or more Indian tribes (as defined in this notice).

We propose a priority for plans that propose to expand, enhance, or modify an existing network of early learning programs and services to ensure that they are high-quality and comprehensive for children from birth through the third grade. The plan must also ensure that the network establishes a high standard of quality across early learning settings and is designed to improve health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes of young children. Distinct from the early learning solutions described in paragraph (2) of Absolute Priority 1, this priority would support implementation plans that coordinate all early learning services and programs in the neighborhood, i.e., school-based early learning programs; district- or State-funded preschool programs; Early Head Start and Head Start; the local child care resource and referral agency, if applicable; IDEA services and programs; services through private providers; home visiting programs; and family, friend, or neighbor care in the Promise Neighborhood.

The coordinated local early learning network must address, or incorporate ongoing State-level efforts regarding, the major components of high-quality early learning programs and services, such as early learning and development standards, program quality standards, comprehensive assessment systems, workforce and professional development systems, health promotion, family and community engagement, a coordinated data infrastructure, and a method of measuring, monitoring, evaluating, and improving program quality. For example, an applicant might address how the Promise Neighborhoods project will use the State's early learning standards, as applicable, and Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework (Framework), as applicable, to define the expectations of what children should know and be able to do before entering kindergarten. The Framework is available on the Office of Head Start's Web site at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf. Similarly, an applicant that addresses this priority must discuss, where applicable, how the State's Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), professional development and workforce infrastructure, and other State efforts would be incorporated into the Promise Neighborhood's plan for a comprehensive local early learning network.

The implementation plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local early learning network must describe the governance structure and the major components of high-quality early learning programs and services as well as include goals, strategies, and benchmarks to provide early learning programs and services that result in improvements across multiple domains of early learning. The plan must result from a needs assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice) and should reflect input from a broad range of stakeholders. An application addressing this priority must designate an individual responsible for overseeing and coordinating the early learning initiatives and must include a resume or position description and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that the individual designated, or individual hired to fill that designation, possesses the appropriate State certification, and has experience and expertise in managing and administering high-quality early learning programs, including in coordinating across various early learning programs and services.

We propose a priority for applicants with plans to ensure that almost all students in the geographic area proposed to be served have broadband internet access (as defined in this notice) at home and at school, the knowledge and skills to use broadband internet access effectively, and a connected computing device to support schoolwork.

We propose a priority for applicants with plans to include opportunities for children and youth to experience and participate actively in the arts and humanities in their community so as to broaden, enrich, and enliven the educational, cultural, and civic experiences available in the neighborhood. Applicants may include plans for offering these activities in school and out-of-school settings and at any time during the calendar year.

We propose a priority for applicants that propose to serve geographic areas that were the subject of an affordable housing transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during FY 2009 or later years. Applicants eligible for this priority must either (1) have received a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant or (2) provide a memorandum of understanding with a recipient of a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant. The memorandum must indicate a commitment on the part of both grantees to coordinate implementation and align resources to the greatest extent practicable.

We propose a priority for applicants with plans that are coordinated with adult education providers serving neighborhood residents, such as those funded through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, as amended. Coordinated services may include adult basic and secondary education and programs that provide training and opportunities for family members and other members of the community to support student learning and establish high expectations for student educational achievement. Examples of services and programs include preparation for the General Education Development (GED) test; English literacy, family literacy, and work-based literacy training; or other training that prepares adults for postsecondary education and careers, or supports adult engagement in the educational success of children and youth in the neighborhood.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to provide an optional, supplemental funding opportunity for Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees with plans that propose to analyze and resolve public safety concerns associated with violence, gangs, and illegal drugs utilizing strategies that include prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry of offenders back into communities upon release from prison and jail. Under this opportunity, DOJ, through an interagency agreement with the Department of Education, would provide additional funds to some Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees. Specifically, DOJ would consider supporting Promise Neighborhoods grantees with plans that align with local leadership in implementing and sustaining innovative solutions that incorporate evidence and research into local program and policy decisions to address and reduce persistent crime. Applicants with plans that address this opportunity would submit a supplemental DOJ Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation application as part of its Department of Education Promise Neighborhoods application.

The Department proposes the following eligibility requirements for the Promise Neighborhoods program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which we conduct a competition for this program.

1. Eligible Applicants: To be eligible for a grant under this competition, an applicant must be an eligible organization (as defined in this notice). For purposes of Absolute Priority 3, an eligible applicant is an eligible organization that partners with an Indian tribe or is an Indian tribe that meets the definition of an eligible organization.

2. Cost-Sharing or Matching:

(a) Planning grants. To be eligible for a planning grant under this competition, an applicant must demonstrate that it has established a commitment from one or more entities in the public or private sector, which may include Federal, State, and local public agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals, to provide matching funds for the planning process. An applicant for a planning grant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations for the planning process equal to at least 50 percent of its grant award, except that an applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute Priority 2: Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute Priority 3: Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 25 percent of the grant award.

(b) Implementation Grants. To be eligible for an implementation grant under this competition, an applicant must demonstrate that it has established a commitment from one or more entities in the public or private sector, which may include Federal, State, and local public agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals, to provide matching funds for the implementation process. An applicant for an implementation grant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 100 percent of its grant award, except that an applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute Priority 2: Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute Priority 3: Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 50 percent of the grant award.

Eligible sources of matching include sources of funds used to pay for solutions within the continuum of solutions, such as Head Start programs, initiatives supported by the LEA, or public health services for children in the neighborhood. At least 10 percent of an implementation applicant's total match must be cash or in-kind contributions from the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals.

(c) Planning and Implementation Grants. Both planning and implementation applicants must demonstrate a commitment of matching funds in the applications. The applicants must specify the source of the funds or contributions and in the case of a third-party in-kind contribution, a description of how the value was determined for the donated or contributed goods or service. Applicants must demonstrate the match commitment by including letters in their applications explaining the type and quantity of the match commitment with original signatures from the executives of organizations or agencies providing the match. The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.

An applicant that is unable to meet the matching requirement must include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce the matching requirement, including the amount of the requested reduction, the total remaining match contribution, and a statement of the basis for the request. An applicant should review the Department's cost-sharing and cost-matching regulations, which include specific limitations in 34 CFR 74.23 applicable to non-profit organizations and institutions of higher education and 34 CFR 80.24 applicable to State, local, and Indian tribal governments, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost principles regarding donations, capital assets, depreciations and allowable costs. These circulars are available on OMB's Web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.

We propose the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Broadband internet access means internet access sufficient to provide community members with the internet available when and where they need it and for the uses they require.

Community of practice means a group of grantees that agrees to interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in an area that is important to them and the success of their project. Establishment of communities of practice under Promise Neighborhoods will enable grantees to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other regarding grantee projects.

Continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions or continuum of solutions means solutions that—

(1) Include programs, policies, practices, services, systems, and supports that result in improving educational and developmental outcomes for children from cradle through college to career;

(2) Are based on the best available evidence, including, where available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice);

(3) Are linked and integrated seamlessly (as defined in this notice); and

(4) Include both education programs and family and community supports.

Credible comparison group includes a comparison group formed by matching project participants with non-participants based on key characteristics that are thought to be related to outcomes. These characteristics include, but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other measures of academic achievement (preferably the same measures that will be used to assess the outcomes of the project); (2) demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, and single- or two-parent family background; (3) the time period in which the two groups are studied ( e.g., the two groups are children entering kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); and (4) methods used to collect outcome data ( e.g., the same test of reading skills administered in the same way to both groups).

Developmentally appropriate early learning measures means a range of assessment instruments that are used in ways consistent with the purposes for which they were designed and validated; appropriate for the ages and other characteristics of the children being assessed; designed and validated for use with children whose ages, cultures, languages spoken at home, socioeconomic status, abilities and disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to those of the children with whom the assessments will be used; and used in compliance with the measurement standards set forth by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council for Measurement in Education (NCME) in the 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

Education programs means programs that include, but are not limited to—

(1) High-quality early learning programs or services designed to improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning for young children. Such programs must be specifically intended to align standards, practices, strategies, or activities across as broad an age range as birth through third grade so as to ensure that young children enter kindergarten and progress through the early elementary school grades demonstrating age-appropriate functioning across the multiple domains;

(2) For children in preschool through the 12th grade, programs, policies, and personnel that are linked to improved educational outcomes. The programs, policies, and personnel—

(a) Must include effective teachers and effective principals;

(b) Must include strategies, practices, or programs that encourage and facilitate the evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement, student growth (as defined in this notice), and other data by educators, families, and other stakeholders to inform decision-making;

(c) Must include college- and career-ready standards, assessments, and practices, including a well-rounded curriculum, instructional practices, strategies, or programs in, at a minimum, core academic subjects as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA, that are aligned with high academic content and achievement standards and with high-quality assessments based on those standards; and

(d) May include creating multiple pathways for students to earn regular high school diplomas (e.g., using schools that serve the needs of over-aged, under-credited, or other students with an exceptional need for flexibility regarding when they attend school or the additional supports they require; awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of student competency; or offering dual-enrollment options); and

(3) Programs that prepare students for college and career success, which may include programs that—

(a) Create and support partnerships with community colleges, four-year colleges, or universities and that help instill a college-going culture in the neighborhood;

(b) Provide dual-enrollment opportunities for secondary students to gain college credit while in high school;

(c) Provide, through relationships with businesses and other organizations, apprenticeship opportunities to students;

(d) Align curricula in the core academic subjects with requirements for industry-recognized certifications or credentials, particularly in high-growth sectors;

(e) Provide access to career and technical education programs so that individuals can attain the skills and industry-recognized certifications or credentials for success in their careers; and

(f) Provide opportunities for all youth (both in and out of school) to achieve academic and employment success by improving educational and skill competencies and providing connections to employers. Such activities may include opportunities for on-going mentoring, supportive services, incentives for recognition and achievement, and opportunities related to leadership, development, decision-making, citizenship, and community service.

Effective school means a school that has—

(1) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between subgroups of students (as identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) within the school or district; or

(2)(a) Demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement in the school for all subgroups of students (as identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) in the school; and (b) made significant improvements in other areas, such as graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or recruitment and placement of effective teachers and effective principals.

Eligible organization means an organization that—

(1) Is representative of the geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice);

(2) Is one of the following:

(a) A nonprofit organization that meets the definition of a nonprofit under 34 CFR 77.1(c), which may include a faith-based nonprofit organization.

(b) An institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

(c) An Indian tribe (as defined in this notice);

(3) Currently provides at least one of the solutions from the applicant's proposed continuum of solutions in the geographic area proposed to be served; and

(4) Operates or proposes to work with and involve in carrying out its proposed project, in coordination with the school's LEA, at least one public elementary or secondary school that is located within the identified geographic area that the grant will serve.

Family and community supports means—

(1) Child and youth health programs, such as physical, mental, behavioral, and emotional health programs (e.g., home visiting programs; Early Head Start; programs to improve nutrition and fitness, reduce childhood obesity, and create healthier communities);

(2) Safety programs, such as programs in school and out of school to prevent, control, and reduce crime, violence, drug and alcohol use, and gang activity; programs that address classroom and school-wide behavior and conduct; programs to prevent child abuse and neglect; programs to prevent truancy and reduce and prevent bullying and harassment; and programs to improve the physical and emotional security of the school setting as perceived, experienced, and created by students, staff, and families;

(3) Community stability programs, such as programs that—

(a) Increase the stability of families in communities by expanding access to quality, affordable housing, providing legal support to help families secure clear legal title to their homes, and providing housing counseling or housing placement services;

(b) Provide adult education and employment opportunities and training to improve educational levels, job skills and readiness in order to decrease unemployment, with a goal of increasing family stability;

(c) Improve families' awareness of, access to, and use of a range of social services, if possible at a single location;

(d) Provide unbiased, outcome-focused, and comprehensive financial education, inside and outside the classroom and at every life stage;

(e) Increase access to traditional financial institutions ( e.g., banks and credit unions) rather than alternative financial institutions ( e.g., check cashers and payday lenders);

(f) Help families increase their financial literacy, financial assets, and savings; and

(g) Help families access transportation to education and employment opportunities;

(4) Family and community engagement programs, such as family literacy programs and programs that provide adult education and training and opportunities for family members and other members of the community to support student learning and establish high expectations for student educational achievement; mentorship programs that create positive relationships between children and adults; and programs that provide for the use of such community resources as libraries, museums, and local businesses to support improved student educational outcomes; and

(5) 21st century learning tools, such as technology (e.g., computers and mobile phones) used by students in the classroom and in the community to support their education. This includes programs that help students use the tools to develop knowledge and skills in such areas as reading and writing, mathematics, research, critical thinking, communication, creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).

Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or year to significantly increase the total number of school hours. It is used to redesign the school's program in a manner that includes additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA; (b) instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for example, physical education, service learning, and experiential and work-based learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations; and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects.

Indian tribe means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe, 25 U.S.C. 479a and 479a-1.

Indicators of need means currently available data that describe—

(1) Education need, which means—

(a) All or a portion of the neighborhood includes or is within the attendance zone of a low-performing school that is a high school, especially one in which the graduation rate (as defined in this notice) is less than 60 percent or a school that can be characterized as low-performing based on another proxy indicator, such as students' on-time progression from grade to grade; and

(b) Other indicators, such as significant achievement gaps between subgroups of students (as identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) within a school or LEA, high teacher and principal turnover, or high student absenteeism; and

(2) Family and community support need, which means—

(a) Percentages of children with preventable chronic health conditions ( e.g., asthma, poor nutrition, dental problems, obesity) or avoidable developmental delays;

(b) Immunization rates;

(c) Rates of crime, including violent crime;

(d) Student mobility rates;

(e) Teenage birth rates;

(f) Percentage of children in single-parent or no-parent families;

(g) Rates of vacant or substandard homes, including distressed public and assisted housing; or

(h) Percentage of the residents living at or below the Federal poverty threshold.

Linked and integrated seamlessly, with respect to the continuum of solutions, means solutions that have common outcomes, focus on similar milestones, support transitional time periods ( e.g., the beginning of kindergarten, the middle grades, or graduation from high school) along the cradle-through-college-to-career continuum, and address time and resource gaps that create obstacles for students in making academic progress.

Low-performing schools means schools receiving assistance through title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), that are in corrective action or restructuring in the State, as determined under section 1116 of the ESEA, and the secondary schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds.

Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies with designs that can support causal conclusions ( i.e., studies with high internal validity) but have limited generalizability ( i.e., moderate external validity) or from studies with high external validity but moderate internal validity.

Multiple domains of early learning means physical well-being and motor development; social-emotional development; approaches toward learning, which refers to the inclinations, dispositions, or styles, rather than skills, that reflect ways that children become involved in learning and develop their inclinations to pursue learning; language and literacy development, including emergent literacy; and cognition and general knowledge, which refers to thinking and problem-solving as well as knowledge about particular objects and the way the world works. Cognition and general knowledge include mathematical and scientific knowledge, abstract thought, and imagination.

Neighborhood assets means—

(1) Developmental assets that allow residents to attain the skills needed to be successful in all aspects of daily life ( e.g., educational institutions, early learning centers, and health resources);

(2) Commercial assets that are associated with production, employment, transactions, and sales ( e.g., labor force and retail establishments);

(3) Recreational assets that create value in a neighborhood beyond work and education ( e.g., parks, open space, community gardens, and arts organizations);

(4) Physical assets that are associated with the built environment and physical infrastructure ( e.g., housing, commercial buildings, and roads); and

(5) Social assets that establish well-functioning social interactions ( e.g., public safety and community engagement).

Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the State—

(1) Any school receiving assistance through Title I that is in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and that—

(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and

(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—

(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

Program indicators are indicators that the Department will use only for research and evaluation purposes and for which an applicant is not required to propose solutions.

Project indicators are indicators for which an applicant proposes solutions intended to result in progress on the indicators.

Public officials means elected officials ( e.g., council members, aldermen and women, commissioners, State legislators, Congressional representatives, members of the school board), appointed officials ( e.g., members of a planning or zoning commission, or of any other regulatory or advisory board or commission), or individuals who are not necessarily public officials, but who have been appointed by a public official to serve on the Promise Neighborhoods governing board or advisory board.

Rapid-time, in reference to reporting and availability of locally-collected data, means that data are available quickly enough to inform current lessons, instruction, and related education programs and family and community supports.

Representative of the geographic area proposed to be served means that residents of the geographic area proposed to be served have an active role in decision-making and that at least one-third of the eligible entity's governing board or advisory board is made up of—

(1) Residents who live in the geographic area proposed to be served, which may include residents who are representative of the ethnic and racial composition of the neighborhood's residents and the languages they speak;

(2) Residents of the city or county in which the neighborhood is located but who live outside the geographic area proposed to be served, and who are low-income (which means earning less than 80 percent of the area's median income as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development);

(3) Public officials (as defined in this notice) who serve the geographic area proposed to be served (although not more than one-half of the governing board or advisory board may be made up of public officials); or

(4) Some combination of individuals from the three groups listed in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this definition.

Rural community means a neighborhood that—

(1) Is served by an LEA that is currently eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the following Department Web sites. For the SRSA program: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible10/index.html.

For the RLIS program: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligible10/index.html; or

(2) Includes only schools designated with a school locale code of 42 or 43. Applicants may determine school locale codes by referring to the following Department Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/.

School climate needs assessment means an evaluation tool that measures the extent to which the school setting promotes or inhibits academic performance by collecting perception data from individuals, which could include students, staff, or families.

Segmentation analysis means the process of grouping and analyzing data from children and families in the geographic area proposed to be served according to indicators of need (as defined in this notice) or other relevant indicators.

Strong evidence means evidence from studies with designs that can support causal conclusions ( i.e., studies with high internal validity), and studies that, in total, include enough of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the State, regional, or national level ( i.e., studies with high external validity).

Student achievement means—

(1) For tested grades and subjects:

(a) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate,

(b) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (2) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms and programs.

(2) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Student growth means the change in achievement data for an individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Student mobility rate is calculated by dividing the total number of new student entries and withdrawals at a school, from the day after the first official enrollment number is collected through the end of the academic year, by the first official enrollment number of the academic year.

Theory of action means an organization's strategy regarding how, considering its capacity and resources, it will take the necessary steps and measures to accomplish its desired results.

Theory of change means an organization's beliefs about how its inputs, and early and intermediate outcomes, relate to accomplishing its long-term desired results.

We propose the following selection criteria for evaluating a planning and implementation grant application under the Promise Neighborhoods program. These criteria are designed to align with the absolute priority for planning and implementation grants. Thus, the “need for project” criterion aligns with the absolute priority requirement that applicants describe the need in the neighborhood. The “quality of project design” and “quality of project services” criteria align with the absolute priority requirement that applicants describe a strategy to build a continuum of solutions with strong schools at the center. The “quality of the management plan” criterion aligns with the absolute priority requirement that applicants describe their capacity to achieve results.

In the notice inviting applications, the application package, or both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect.

The proposed selection criteria for planning grant applicants are as follows:

(1) Need for project.

(a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.

(b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

(i) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by the proposed project as described by indicators of need and other relevant indicators; and

(ii) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been described.

(2) Quality of the project design.

(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

(i) The extent to which the continuum of solutions will be aligned with an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy for improvement of schools in the neighborhood;

(ii) The extent to which the applicant describes a proposal to plan to create a complete continuum of solutions, including early learning through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family and community supports, without time and resource gaps that will prepare all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent education and successfully transition to college and a career; and

(iii) The extent to which solutions leverage existing neighborhood assets and coordinate with other efforts, including programs supported by Federal, State, local, and private funds.

(3) Quality of project services.

(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(b) In determining the quality of the project services, the Secretary considers—

(i) The extent to which the applicant describes how the needs assessment and segmentation analysis, including identifying and describing indicators, will be used during the planning phase to determine each solution within the continuum; and

(ii) The extent to which the applicant describes how it will determine that solutions are based on the best available evidence including, where available, strong or moderate evidence, and ensure that solutions drive results and lead to changes on indicators.

(4) Quality of the management plan.

(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the experience, lessons learned, and proposal to build capacity of the applicant's management team and project director in all of the following areas—

(i) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools described in paragraph (2)(b) of Absolute Priority 1; the LEA in which those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other service providers;

(ii) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability;

(iii) Creating formal and informal partnerships, including the alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change described in its memorandum of understanding; and

(iv) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private sources, including its proposal to leverage and integrate high-quality programs in the neighborhood into the continuum of solutions.

The proposed selection criteria for implementation grant applicants are as follows:

(1) Need for project.

(a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.

(b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

(i) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by the proposed project as described by indicators of need and other relevant indicators identified in part by the needs assessment and segmentation analysis; and

(ii) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been described.

(2) Quality of the project design.

(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the continuum of solutions is aligned with an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy for improvement of schools in the neighborhood.

(ii) The extent to which the applicant describes an implementation plan to create a complete continuum of solutions, including early learning through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family and community supports, without time and resource gaps, that will prepare all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent education and successfully transition to college and a career.

(iii) The extent to which the applicant identifies existing neighborhood assets and programs supported by Federal, State, local, and private funds that will be used to implement a continuum of solutions.

(iv) The extent to which the applicant describes its implementation plan, including clear, annual goals for improving systems and leveraging resources as described in paragraph (2) of Absolute Priority 1.

(3) Quality of project services.

(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(b) In determining the quality of the project services, the Secretary considers—

(i) The extent to which the applicant describes how the needs assessment and segmentation analysis, including identifying and describing indicators, were used to determine each solution within the continuum;

(ii) The extent to which the applicant documents that proposed solutions are based on the best available evidence including, where available, strong or moderate evidence; and

(iii) The extent to which the applicant describes clear, annual goals for changes on indicators.

(4) Quality of the management plan.

(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the experience, lessons learned, and proposal to build capacity of the applicant's management team and project director in all of the following areas—

(i) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools described in paragraph (2)(b) of Absolute Priority 1; the LEA in which those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other service providers;

(ii) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, including whether the applicant has a plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in order to measure progress;

(iii) Creating formal and informal partnerships, including the alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change described in its memorandum of understanding; and

(iv) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private sources, including its proposal to leverage and integrate high-quality programs in the neighborhood into the continuum of solutions.

We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Executive Order 12866: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is significant under section 3(f) of the Executive order.

This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this proposed regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this proposed regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priority, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria justify the costs.

We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

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 computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: 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) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act) requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.

Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at http://www.ftc.gov/appliances .

DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a Federal Register notice entitled, “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy”, dated March 18, 2010, 75 FR 13123. Effective April 11, 2011, the cost figures published on March 18, 2010, will be superseded by the cost figures set forth in this notice.

DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2011 representative average unit after-tax costs found in this notice. The representative average unit after-tax costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the February, 2011, EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook. (EIA releases the Outlook monthly.) The representative average unit after-tax cost for kerosene is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2005-2009 averages for these two fuels. The source for these price data is the January, 2011, Monthly Energy Review DOE/EIA-0035(2011/01). The Short-Term Energy Outlook and the Monthly Energy Review are available on the EIA Web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov . For more information on the two sources, contact the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, EI-30, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8800, e-mail: infoctr@eia.doe.gov .

The 2011 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 11, 2011. They will remain in effect until further notice.