9004 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Notices 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development 

Type of Review: NEW. 

Title of Collection: Equitable 

Distribution of Effective Teachers. 

OMB Control Number: Pending. 

Agency Form Number(s): N/A. 

Frequency of Responses: Once. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government, State Education Agencies 

or Local Education Agencies. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 42. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden 

Hours: 135. 

Abstract: The most recent 

reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act in 2002 

required that states provide assurances 

and develop plans to ‘‘ensure that poor 

and minority children are not taught at 

higher rates than other children by 

inexperienced, unqualified, or out of 

field teachers’’ (Section 1111 (b)(8)(C)). 

In 2009, American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirements 

reinforced the focus on equitable 

distribution of teachers by requiring 

states applying for education stimulus 

funds to provide updated assurances 

and to publicize their most recent 

‘‘equity plans.’’ ARRA also establishes 

competitive grants to help states build 

their pool of effective teachers and 

address inequities in the distribution of 

teachers. In addition to their focus on 

the equitable distribution of teacher 

quality, federal programs also have been 

promoting shifts in how teacher quality 

is measured, away from teacher 

qualifications and toward measures of 

instructional practice and effectiveness 

at raising student achievement. Federal 

programs such as the Teacher Incentive 

Fund and Race to the Top have 

provided incentives for states and 

districts to move in this direction, 

including funds to support some of the 

technical aspects of development. 

Federal policymakers need to know 

whether the policies and programs they 

sponsor under these laws contribute to 

teacher quality for disadvantaged 

students. Hence, the U.S. Department of 

Education requires a study documenting 

the state and local actions to (a) develop 

new measures of teacher quality, (b) 

analyze the distribution of teacher 

quality, and (c) develop and implement 

plans to ensure teacher quality for 

disadvantaged students. To inform 

federal policymakers, the study will 

examine the implementation of these 

activities with attention to 

implementation challenges, the role of 

state and local context, and the roles of 

the federal programs designed to foster 

these activities. 

The planned data collections will 

serve four objectives: 

1. To examine how states and districts 

analyze the distribution of teacher 

quality, plan actions to address 

inequities, and monitor progress. 

2. To examine how states and districts 

are changing their measures of teacher 

quality, and to understand their 

experiences in doing so. 

3. To examine state and local actions 

to improve teacher quality for 

disadvantaged students (i.e., students in 

high-poverty or high-minority schools). 

4. To describe the perceived 

contributions of federal programs to 

state and local actions aimed at 

improving the quality of teachers for 

disadvantaged students, and how state 

and local contexts mediate these 

contributions. 

To address these objectives, our 

design includes telephone interviews 

with state education agencies and local 

education agencies. 

Requests for 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 4426. 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. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3489 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Public Comment on Setting 

Achievement Levels in Writing 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Assessment Governing Board. 

ACTION: Notice, Public Comment on 

Setting Achievement Levels in Writing. 

SUMMARY: The National Assessment 

Governing Board (Governing Board) is 

soliciting public comments and 

recommendations to improve the design 

proposed for setting achievement levels 

for NAEP in writing. This notice 

provides opportunity for public 

comment and submitting 

recommendations for improving the 

design proposed for setting achievement 

levels for the 2011 National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 

Writing. 

The proposed Design Document, 

available at http://www.wested.org/cs/ 

naep/print/docs/naep/welcome.html, 

describes the process that will produce 

cutscores to represent the lower 

boundary of each of three NAEP 

achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, 

and Advanced. The Governing Board 

has contracted with WestEd to assist in 

gathering feedback on the design 

document. Additional information on 

the Governing Board’s work and NAEP 

achievement levels can be found at 

http://www.nagb.org 

Public and private individuals and 

organizations are invited to provide 

written comments and 

recommendations. Voluntary 

participation by all interested parties is 

urged. This notice sets forth the review 

schedule, identifies the kinds of 

information that the Governing Board is 

seeking to obtain regarding the Design 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Notices 9005 

Document, and provides information for 

accessing additional materials that will 

be useful for this review. This document 

is intended to notify members of the 

general public of their opportunity to 

provide comments and/or make 

recommendations. 

Background 

Under Public Law 107–279, the 

Governing Board is authorized to 

formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. 

The legislation specifies that the 

Governing Board is to develop 

appropriate student achievement levels 

for each subject and grade tested, as 

provided in section 303(e). 

Achievement levels are determined by 

identifying the knowledge that can be 

measured and verified objectively using 

widely accepted professional 

assessment standards. Achievement 

levels are to be consistent with relevant 

widely accepted professional 

assessment standards, and based on the 

appropriate level of subject matter 

knowledge for grade levels to be 

assessed, or on the age of the students 

In preparation for setting achievement 

levels for the new assessment of writing 

at grades 4, 8, and 12, the Governing 

Board seeks comment on the draft 

Design Document intended to guide this 

process. This is the first wholly 

computer-based NAEP, and the design 

calls for this to be the first computerized 

NAEP achievement levels-setting 

process. Comments are invited, 

particularly on the computerization of 

the achievement levels setting process. 

All responses received will be taken 

into consideration before finalizing the 

Design Document. 

Materials for Review and Comment 

Policymakers, teachers, researchers, 

State and local writing specialists, 

members of professional writing and 

teacher organizations, and members of 

the public are invited to provide 

feedback. Comments will provide 

valuable feedback that is designed to 

improve the first computerized 

achievement levels setting process. 

To assist with the review and 

comment, the following materials are 

posted at http://www.wested.org/cs/ 

naep/print/docs/naep/welcome.html. 

(1) Design Document: The draft 

Design Document presents a 

preliminary design approach to guide 

all aspects of the process. 

(2) Focus Questions: Focus questions 

related to certain aspects of the Design 

Document are provided as potential 

areas of interest for your feedback. 

While all comments and 

recommendations are appreciated, 

specific issues that you might wish to 

address include the following: 

1. The objective of this study is to set 

achievement levels for the 2011 and 

2013 NAEP writing assessments. Does 

the study design as presented in the 

Design Document seem reasonable for 

accomplishing this overall objective? 

2. What improvements can be made to 

the design to more fully accomplish the 

objectives of this study? 

3. The proposed design calls for the 

computerization of many aspects of the 

study. Are there aspects of this 

computerization that will be 

particularly effective or ineffective in 

meeting the objective of this study? 

4. Is the field trial as described a 

reasonable method for testing the 

logistics of the computerized 

methodology? 

5. Is the special study as described a 

reasonable method for comparing 

performance relative to the achievement 

levels on the 2007 writing NAEP 

assessment with performance relative to 

the achievement levels for the new 

writing NAEP assessment? 

Timeline 

It is anticipated that the finalized 

Design Document will be presented for 

approval to the Governing Board on 

March 4, 2011. Comments must be 

received by February 22, 2011, and sent 

to: 

WestEd, 730 Harrison Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94107, Attention: Jennae 

Bulat: Public Comment, Fax: (415) 615– 

3200, E-mail: jbulat@wested.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennae Bulat, WestEd, 730 Harrison 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, 

Telephone: (415) 615–3260, FAX: (415) 

615–3200, E-mail: JBulat@Wested.org. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You may 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/index.html. To use PDF you 

must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at this site. If you 

have questions about using PDF, call the 

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 

toll free at 1–866–512–0000; or in the 

Washington, DC area at (202) 512–1800. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Munira Mwalimu, 

Operations Officer, National Assessment 

Governing Board, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3438 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13829–001] 

David Creasey; Notice of Application 

Tendered for Filing With the 

Commission; Notice of Application 

Tendered for Filing With the 

Commission, Accepted for Filing With 

the Commission, Soliciting Motions To 

Intervene and Protests, Ready for 

Environmental Analysis, Intent To 

Waive Solicitation of Additional Study 

Requests, Intent To Waive Scoping, 

Intent To Waive Three Stage 

Consultation, Soliciting Comments, 

Terms and Conditions, 

Recommendations, and Prescriptions, 

and Establishing an Expedited 

Schedule for Processing 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: Original 

Minor License. 

b. Project No.: 13829–001. 

c. Date filed: February 4, 2011. 

d. Applicant: David Creasey. 

e. Name of Project: Creasey 

Hydropower Project. 

f. Project Description: The Creasey 

Hydropower Project would consist of 

the following: (1) A 21-foot-wide, 6.5- 

foot-high concrete check structure 

which would back up water in Lincoln 

Creek; (2) a 1,650-foot-long, 21-inchdiamter PVC penstock with an intake 

structure and trashrack; (3) one turbine/ 

generator unit with a total installed 

capacity of 14–20 kilowatts; (4) a 12-foot 

long, 14-foot wide concrete slab on 

which the turbine/generator unit would 

sit; (5) an approximately 75-foot-long, 

12-inch-diamater PVC pipe which 

would return flows to the Lincoln Creek 

Drainage Ditch; and (6) an 

approximately 900-foot-long buried 

transmission line from the turbine/ 

generator unit to the Creasey residence. 

The project would have an annual 

generation of 122.4 megawatt-hours. All 

project facilities would be located on 

private land owned by the applicant. 

The applicant proposes to operate the 

project as run-of-river. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES