Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3375 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–1072 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–1072 Safety Zone: Congress 

Street Bridge, Pequonnock River, 

Bridgeport, Connecticut. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Pequonnock River in Bridgeport, 

Connecticut, from surface to bottom, 

within 100 yards to either side of the 

Congress Street Bridge. 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

Designated on-scene patrol personnel, 

means any commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the Coast Guard on 

board Coast Guard, Coast Guard 

Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal 

law enforcement vessels who have been 

authorized to act on the behalf of the 

Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 

apply. 

(2) In accordance with the general 

regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry 

into or movement within this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP), Long Island 

Sound. 

(3) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the Coast Guard Captain of 

the Port or designated on-scene patrol 

personnel. 

(4) Upon being hailed by siren, radio, 

flashing light or other means from a U.S. 

Coast Guard vessel or other vessel with 

on-scene patrol personnel aboard, the 

operator of the vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) Persons and vessels may request 

permission to enter the zone on VHF– 

16 or via phone at (203) 468–4401. 

(d) Effective dates. The safety zone is 

being established from 11:59 p.m. on 

January 31, 2010, to 11:59 p.m. on April 

16, 2010. Marine traffic may continue to 

transit the area during the January 1 to 

January 31 and April 17 to May 15 

portions of the project. While the 

channel is open and the safety zone is 

not in place, mariners are still advised 

to transit the area with extreme caution. 

Dated: December 29, 2009. 

D.A. Ronan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1003 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0010] 

RIN 1810–AB06 

School Improvement Grants; American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as Amended (ESEA) 

ACTION: Interim final requirements for 

School Improvement Grants authorized 

under section 1003(g) of Title I of the 

ESEA; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) amends the final 

requirements for School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) authorized under section 

1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA and 

funded through both the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111– 

8) and the ARRA to incorporate new 

authority included in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

117) applicable to fiscal year (FY) 2010 

SIG funds and FY 2009 ARRA SIG 

funds. Specifically, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 expands the 

group of schools that are eligible to 

receive SIG funds. In addition, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

raises the maximum amount of SIG 

funds that a State educational agency 

(SEA) may award to a local educational 

agency (LEA) for each participating 

school from $500,000 to $2,000,000. 

This notice incorporates these changes 

into the final SIG requirements that the 

Department published on December 10, 

2009. 

DATES: These requirements are effective 

February 8, 2010. We must receive your 

comments by February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time, in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these interim final 

requirements, address them to Dr. Zollie 

Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3W320, Washington, DC 20202. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including those 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Zollie Stevenson, Jr. Telephone: 202– 

260–0826 or by e-mail: 

Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding these interim final 

requirements. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final requirements, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

section or sections of the interim final 

requirements that each of your 

comments addresses and to arrange your 

comments in the same order as the 

interim final requirements. 

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 

these interim final requirements. Please 

let us know of any further opportunities 

we should take to reduce potential costs 

or increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the SIG program. 

During and after the comment period 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these interim final requirements 

by accessing Regulations.gov. You may 

also inspect the comments, in person, in 

room 3W100, 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3376 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1These two provisions apply only to FY 2009 

ARRA SIG funds and FY 2010 SIG funds; they do 

not apply to SIG funds made available through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (i.e., the 

regular FY 2009 SIG funds). Therefore, prior to 

October 1, 2010, regular FY 2009 SIG funds cannot 

be spent pursuant to the flexibility in these 

provisions. Regular FY 2009 SIG funds, however, 

become subject to the requirements applicable to 

FY 2010 SIG funds on October 1, 2010 when they 

become carryover funds. See section 421(b)(2)(A) of 

the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 

1225(b)(2)(A)). Accordingly, in order to ensure 

compliance with the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2010, we will consider LEAs’ obligations of 

SIG funds in the State as a whole prior to October 

1, 2010 to come from the State’s allocation of FY 

2009 ARRA SIG funds, which we believe in every 

State will be more than sufficient to cover those 

obligations. Beginning October 1, 2010, LEAs may 

use all SIG funds, including regular FY 2009 SIG 

funds, pursuant to the flexibility in these 

provisions, consistent with the final requirements 

as amended. 

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. 

Background: The Secretary published 

final requirements for the SIG program 

in the Federal Register on December 10, 

2009 (74 FR 65618). Subsequently, on 

December 16, 2009, the President signed 

into law the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010, which 

contains FY 2010 appropriations for the 

Department, and which also includes 

two provisions applicable to the use of 

both FY 2010 SIG funds and FY 2009 

ARRA SIG funds. First, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

expands eligibility for participation in 

the SIG program by permitting an SEA 

to award SIG funds for, and for an LEA 

to use those funds to serve, any school 

that is eligible to receive assistance 

under Title I, Part A and that: (1) Has 

not made adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) for at least two years; or (2) is in 

the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates. 

With respect to secondary schools, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

gives priority to high schools with 

graduation rates below 60 percent. 

Second, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the 

maximum subgrant size for a 

participating school from $500,000 to 

$2,000,000.1

These interim final requirements 

incorporate this new authority into the 

final SIG requirements that were 

published on December 10, 2009. 

Although the interim final requirements 

give an SEA discretion to expand the 

group of schools that are eligible to 

receive SIG funds, the purpose of the 

SIG program remains the same: to 

provide funds to LEAs that demonstrate 

the greatest need for the funds and the 

strongest commitment to use the funds 

to turn around their persistently lowestachieving schools and significantly raise 

student achievement in those schools. 

Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed 

Effective Date: Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553), the Department is generally 

required to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and provide the public with 

an opportunity to comment on proposed 

regulations prior to establishing a final 

rule. However, we are waiving the 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

requirements under the APA. Section 

553(b) of the APA provides that an 

agency is not required to conduct 

notice-and-comment rulemaking when 

the agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. Although these 

requirements are subject to the APA’s 

notice-and-comment requirements, the 

Secretary has determined that it would 

be impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to the public interest to 

conduct notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

As noted above, these interim final 

requirements are needed to incorporate 

the new SIG authority provided by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

into the final SIG requirements 

published on December 10, 2009. Those 

final requirements take effect on 

February 8, 2010, also the date by which 

State applications for SIG funds are due 

to the Department. The Department 

must award FY 2009 SIG funds to SEAs 

by September 30, 2010 or the funds will 

lapse. Even on an extremely expedited 

timeline, it is impracticable for the 

Department to conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking and then 

promulgate final requirements in time to 

make grant awards to States by the 

September 30 deadline. Publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

reviewing the public comments, and 

issuing final regulations normally takes 

at least six months. We are concerned 

that, when added to the time the 

Department will need to receive, review, 

and approve State applications for SIG 

funds, the Department may not be able 

to allocate FY 2009, including ARRA, 

SIG funds to all States by September 30, 

2010. With $3.5 billion at stake, it 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest for the Department to 

take this risk. Issuing these interim final 

requirements permits the Department to 

maintain the current State application 

timeline. 

Additionally, the Department has 

recently concluded notice-and-comment 

rulemaking on the final SIG 

requirements. These interim final 

requirements incorporate the new 

authority in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 into the 

existing final SIG requirements with 

only minimal, necessary changes. 

Accordingly, and in order to make 

timely grant awards for FY 2009, the 

Secretary is issuing these interim final 

requirements without first publishing 

proposed requirements for public 

comment. 

Although the Department is adopting 

these requirements on an interim final 

basis, the Department requests public 

comment on these requirements. After 

consideration of public comments, the 

Secretary will publish final 

requirements. 

The APA also requires that a 

substantive rule be published at least 30 

days before its effective date, except as 

otherwise provided for good cause (5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). For the reasons 

outlined in the preceding paragraphs, 

the Secretary has determined that a 

delayed effective date for these interim 

final requirements would be 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest, and that good cause exists to 

waive the requirement for a delayed 

effective date. 

Summary of the Interim Final 

Requirements: 

We discuss substantive changes to the 

final SIG requirements published on 

December 10, 2009 under the sections of 

the interim final requirements to which 

they pertain. 

Section I.A.1—defining ‘‘greatest 

need’’: 

Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA 

limits eligibility for school improvement 

funds to Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. The 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

expands the group of schools eligible to 

be served with SIG funds to include any 

school that is eligible to receive Title I, 

Part A funds (including schools that 

receive Title I, Part A funds and those 

that do not) and that (1) has not made 

AYP for at least two years, or (2) is in 

the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates. 

In the case of secondary schools, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

requires that priority be given to those 

schools with graduation rates below 60 

percent. 

Current final requirements: Section 

I.A.1 defines three tiers of schools. A 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3377 

Tier I school is any Title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that is identified by the 

SEA as a ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

school.’’ As such, the school is among 

the lowest-achieving five percent of 

Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State (or the lowest-achieving five such 

schools) or is a Title I high school that 

has had a graduation rate that is less 

than 60 percent over a number of years. 

A Tier II school is any secondary 

school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, Title I, Part A funds and that is 

identified by the SEA as a ‘‘persistently 

lowest-achieving school.’’ As such, the 

school is among the lowest-achieving 

five percent of such secondary schools 

in the State (or the lowest-achieving five 

such secondary schools) or is a high 

school that has had a graduation rate 

that is less than 60 percent over a 

number of years. 

A Tier III school is any Title I school 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that is not a Tier I school. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements amend the 

definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III 

schools to incorporate the expanded 

eligibility provided for in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. 

The interim final requirements do not 

change the definition of ‘‘persistently 

lowest-achieving schools’’ as that 

definition is used to define Tier I and 

Tier II schools. An SEA must use this 

definition to identify the persistently 

lowest-achieving schools in the State, 

which will comprise at least part of the 

schools in Tier I and Tier II. The SEA 

must also identify the schools in Tier 

III—i.e., the Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that are not in Tier I. The 

interim final requirements permit an 

SEA, at its option, to identify additional 

schools in each tier. 

With respect to Tier I, in addition to 

the Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

an SEA has identified as persistently 

lowest-achieving schools, the SEA may 

identify any elementary school that (1) 

is eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds 

(including schools that receive Title I, 

Part A funds and those that do not); (2) 

either has not made AYP for at least two 

consecutive years or is in the State’s 

lowest quintile of performance based on 

proficiency rates on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading/language arts and 

mathematics combined; and (3) is no 

higher achieving on the State’s 

assessments combined than the highestachieving Tier I school that the SEA has 

identified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 

the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ These newly eligible 

schools may be Title I schools that are 

not identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring or 

schools eligible for, but not receiving, 

Title I, Part A funds, provided they meet 

the criteria in section I.A.1(a)(ii) of the 

interim final requirements. 

With respect to Tier II, in addition to 

the secondary schools that are eligible 

for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds and that an SEA has identified as 

persistently lowest-achieving schools, 

the SEA may identify any secondary 

school that (1) is eligible to receive Title 

I, Part A funds (including schools that 

receive Title I, Part A funds and those 

that do not); (2) either has not made 

AYP for at least two consecutive years 

or is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and (3) either is no higher 

achieving on the State’s assessments 

combined than the highest-achieving 

Tier II school that the SEA has 

identified under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ or is a high school 

that has had a graduation rate that is 

less than 60 percent over a number of 

years. Tier II secondary schools that an 

SEA has identified as persistently 

lowest-achieving schools—i.e., 

secondary schools that are eligible for, 

but do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds—are eligible without the need for 

an SEA or LEA to obtain a waiver of 

section 1003(g)’s limitation on serving 

only Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. Tier 

II also may now include Title I 

secondary schools that are or are not in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring if those schools meet the 

criteria in section I.A.1(b)(ii) of the 

interim final requirements and are not 

already captured in Tier I. 

With respect to Tier III, in addition to 

any Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that is 

not a Tier I school, an SEA may identify 

any school that (1) is eligible for Title 

I, Part A funds (including schools that 

receive Title I, Part A funds and those 

that do not); (2) has not made AYP for 

at least two years or is in the State’s 

lowest quintile of performance based on 

proficiency rates on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading/language arts and 

mathematics combined; and (3) does not 

meet the requirements to be a Tier I or 

Tier II school. Thus, a Tier III school 

may be a Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, a 

school that receives Title I, Part A funds 

that is not in improvement, or a school 

that is eligible for, but does not receive, 

Title I, Part A funds, provided the 

school meets one of the two criteria in 

section I.A.1(c)(ii)(A). 

To illustrate further the changes we 

are making with respect to how an SEA 

identifies a newly eligible school as a 

Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school, we are 

providing the following chart. The left 

column represents the schools an SEA 

must identify in each of Tiers I, II, and 

III; the right column represents the 

newly eligible schools based on the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

that an SEA may, but is not required to, 

identify in Tiers I, II, and III. 

Schools an SEA MUST 

identify in each tier Newly eligible schools an SEA MAY identify in each tier 

Tier I .............................. Schools that meet the criteria in paragraph 

(a)(1) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools.’’ 1

Title I eligible 2 elementary schools that are no higher achieving than 

the highest-achieving school that meets the criteria in paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools’’ 

and that are: 

• In the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or 

• Have not made AYP for two consecutive years. 

Tier II ............................. Schools that meet the criteria in paragraph 

(a)(2) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools.’’ 

Title I eligible secondary schools that are (1) no higher achieving 

than the highest-achieving school that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(2)(i) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

schools’’ or (2) high schools that have had a graduation rate of 

less than 60 percent over a number of years and that are: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3378 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Schools an SEA MUST 

identify in each tier Newly eligible schools an SEA MAY identify in each tier 

• In the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or 

• Have not made AYP for two consecutive years. 

Tier III ............................ Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I.3Title I eligible schools that do not meet the requirements to be in Tier 

I or Tier II and that are: 

• In the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or 

• Have not made AYP for two years. 

Notes to Chart: 

1 ‘‘Persistently lowest-achieving schools’’ means, as determined by the State— 

(a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that— 

(i) 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 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) 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— 

(i) 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 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years. 2 For the purposes of schools that may be added to Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III, ‘‘Title I eligible’’ schools may be schools that are eligible for, but 

do not receive, Title I, Part A funds or schools that are Title I participating (i.e., schools that are eligible for and do receive Title I, Part A funds). 3 Certain Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I may be in Tier II rather than Tier III. In particular, Title I secondary schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I may be in Tier II if they meet the criteria 

in section I.A.1(b)(ii)(A)(2) and (B) and an SEA chooses to include them in Tier II. 

Reasons: These changes are needed to 

incorporate into the final SIG 

requirements the expanded authority in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2010 with respect to eligible schools. It 

is important to note that an SEA has the 

option to add these newly eligible 

schools to its lists of Tier I, Tier II, and 

Tier III schools in accordance with these 

interim final requirements, but the SEA 

is not required to do so. Moreover, if an 

SEA chooses to add newly eligible 

schools at all, it has the flexibility to 

add only a subset of those schools to its 

lists of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III 

schools. For example, an SEA might 

choose to add newly eligible schools to 

Tier I and Tier II but not to Tier III, or 

it might add to Tier III only newly 

eligible schools that are in the lowest 

decile (rather than quintile) of schools 

in the State based on proficiency rates. 

An LEA may apply to serve only 

schools that are included in an SEA’s 

definition of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III 

schools. 

We note that the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 also requires 

that, ‘‘in the case of secondary schools, 

priority shall be given to those schools 

with graduation rates below 60 percent.’’ 

This priority is accounted for in the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools,’’ which requires an 

SEA to identify any Title I high school 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring and any secondary school 

that is eligible for, but does not receive, 

Title I, Part A funds that has a 

graduation rate of less than a 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

Sections I.B.2 and I.B.3—waivers for 

Tier I and Tier II Title I participating 

schools: 

Statute: Section 1116(b) of the ESEA 

prescribes a school improvement 

timeline for a Title I school that misses 

AYP for at least two consecutive years. 

Section 1114(a) of the ESEA authorizes 

a Title I school with a poverty 

percentage of at least 40 percent to 

operate a schoolwide program; a school 

that does not meet that poverty 

threshold may provide Title I services 

only to identified students who are 

failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet 

State standards. 

Current final requirements: Section 

I.B.2 permits an SEA to seek a waiver 

of the school improvement timeline in 

section 1116(b) of the ESEA for any Tier 

I school—i.e., a Title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring—that implements a 

turnaround or restart model as defined 

in section I.A.2(a) and (b). Section I.B.3 

permits an SEA to seek a waiver of the 

poverty threshold in section 1114(a) for 

any Tier I school below that threshold 

in order that the school may implement 

one of the school intervention models 

defined in section I.A.2 through a 

schoolwide program. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements amend 

section I.B.2 to clarify that an SEA may 

seek a waiver of the school 

improvement timeline in section 

1116(b) with respect to a Tier I or Tier 

II Title I participating school that 

implements a turnaround or restart 

model. The interim final requirements 

also amend section I.B.3 to clarify that 

an SEA may seek a waiver of the 

schoolwide program poverty threshold 

in section 1114(a) with respect to a Tier 

I or Tier II Title I participating school 

below that threshold in order that the 

school may implement one of the school 

intervention models through a 

schoolwide program. 

Reasons: In expanding eligibility, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

created the possibility of identifying as 

Tier II schools secondary schools that 

receive Title I, Part A funds. It also 

created the possibility of identifying as 

Tier I schools elementary schools that 

are eligible for, but do not receive, Title 

I, Part A funds. Accordingly, we are 

clarifying in sections I.B.2 and I.B.3 that 

waivers of sections 1116(b) and 1114(a) 

of the ESEA would be appropriate for 

Tier II schools that receive Title I, Part 

A funds as well as for Tier I schools that 

receive Title I, Part A funds. The phrase 

‘‘Title I participating school’’—i.e., a 

school that receives Title I, Part A 

funds—has been added in both sections; 

waivers are not necessary for non-Title 

I schools in either Tier I or Tier II 

because the requirements in sections 

1116 and 1114 do not apply to those 

schools. 

Section I.B.4—waiver to serve a Tier 

II school: 

Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA 

requires an SEA to award SIG funds 

only to LEAs with one or more Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring. The 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

expands the group of schools eligible to 

be served with SIG funds to include any 

school that is eligible to receive Title I, 

Part A funds, including Tier II 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3379 

secondary schools that are eligible for, 

but do not receive, those funds. 

Current final requirements: Section 

I.B.4 permits an SEA to seek a waiver 

from the Secretary to enable an LEA to 

use SIG funds to serve a Tier II 

secondary school that is eligible for, but 

does not receive, Title I, Part A funds. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements remove 

section I.B.4. 

Reasons: Section I.B.4 is no longer 

needed. Because the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 authorizes an 

SEA and LEA to use SIG funds to serve 

secondary schools that are eligible for, 

but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds, 

an SEA no longer needs a waiver to do 

so. 

Section II.A.1—LEA eligibility: 

Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA 

requires an SEA to award SIG funds 

only to LEAs with Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring. The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 expands this 

eligibility to permit an SEA to award 

SIG funds to LEAs that have a school 

eligible to receive assistance under Title 

I, Part A that has not made AYP for at 

least two years or is in the State’s lowest 

quintile of performance based on 

proficiency rates. 

Current final requirements: Section 

II.A.1 makes clear that, to apply for a 

SIG grant, an LEA must have one or 

more schools in Tier I or Tier III. In 

other words, the current requirements 

provide that, to be eligible for SIG 

funds, an LEA must have one or more 

Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements amend 

section II.A.1 to make clear that an LEA 

may apply for a SIG grant if the LEA 

receives Title I, Part A funds and has 

one or more schools that qualify under 

the State’s definition of a Tier I, Tier II, 

or Tier III school. 

Reasons: Based on the expanded 

eligibility authorized by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 

an LEA may apply for a SIG grant even 

if it does not have any Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring, provided the LEA has one 

or more schools that are eligible for Title 

I, Part A funds and meet the criteria in 

section I.A.1(a) (definition of Tier I 

schools), (b) (definition of Tier II 

schools), or (c) (definition of Tier III 

schools) as defined by the SEA. 

Accordingly, to be eligible, an LEA must 

have one or more schools that meet the 

SEA’s definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or 

Tier III school. 

Sections II.A.4 and II.A.5—LEA’s 

budget: 

Statute: Section 1003(g)(5) of the 

ESEA requires an SEA to allocate to an 

LEA ‘‘not less than $50,000 and not 

more than $500,000 for each 

participating school.’’ The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the 

maximum amount per participating 

school from $500,000 to $2,000,000. 

Current final requirements: Sections 

II.A.4 and II.A.5 recognize that an LEA’s 

budget will likely need to exceed the 

statutory maximum of $500,000 for most 

Tier I and Tier II schools in order for the 

LEA to implement fully and effectively 

three of the four school intervention 

models. Under the current final SIG 

requirements, additional funds needed 

to implement school intervention 

models in Tier I and Tier II schools 

would be generated by Tier III schools. 

Section II.A.5 provides that services for 

a Tier III school do not need to be 

commensurate with the funds an SEA 

allocates to the LEA for the school. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements remove 

language that is no longer necessary 

from sections II.A.4 and II.A.5 regarding 

an LEA’s budget. In section II.A.4, we 

are removing the last two sentences. We 

are amending section II.A.5 to read ‘‘The 

LEA’s budget for each Tier III school it 

commits to serve must include the 

services it will provide the school, 

particularly if the school meets 

additional criteria established by the 

SEA.’’ 

Reasons: Because the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the 

maximum amount for each participating 

school from $500,000 to $2,000,000, an 

LEA’s budget can reflect more 

accurately the actual amount needed to 

implement one of the four school 

intervention models in each Tier I and 

Tier II school the LEA commits to serve. 

Moreover, the LEA may budget more 

accurately for its Tier III schools 

without concern that they generate 

funds for the LEA’s Tier I and Tier II 

schools. 

Section II.A.6—SIG funds are 

supplemental: 

Statute: Section 1114(a)(2)(B) of the 

ESEA requires an LEA to allocate to a 

Title I school operating a schoolwide 

program ‘‘the amount of funds that 

would, in the absence of [Title I, Part A 

funds], be made available from nonFederal sources for the school, 

including funds needed to provide 

services that are required by law for 

children with disabilities and children 

with limited English proficiency.’’ 

Current final requirements: None. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements add section 

II.A.6, which requires an LEA that 

commits to serve one or more Tier I, 

Tier II, or Tier III schools that do not 

receive Title I, Part A funds to ensure 

that each of those schools receives all of 

the State and local funds it would have 

received in the absence of the SIG 

funds. 

Reasons: Under the current final SIG 

requirements, a Tier I school must be a 

Title I school operating a schoolwide 

program in order to implement one of 

the school intervention models. 

Accordingly, under section 

1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA, the LEA must 

provide the school all of the nonFederal funds that would have been 

available to the school in the absence of 

Title I, Part A funds. Thus, both Title I, 

Part A funds and SIG funds are 

supplemental to the State and local 

funds the school receives. To ensure 

that SIG funds are also supplemental in 

Tier II schools, which are not Title I 

schools under the final SIG 

requirements and, thus, are not covered 

by section 1114(a)(2)(B), we intended to 

condition a waiver permitting an LEA to 

serve Tier II schools on the LEA’s 

providing all State and local funds to 

those schools that they otherwise would 

have received. Now that the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

has made non-Title I schools eligible as 

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools 

without need for a waiver, we cannot 

ensure that SIG funds will be 

supplemental to State and local funds 

without establishing the requirement in 

section II.A.6. 

Sections II.B.4 and II.B.7—priority for 

funding Tier I and Tier II schools: 

Statute: Section 1003(g)(6) of the 

ESEA requires an SEA to give priority, 

in awarding SIG grants, to LEAs that 

demonstrate the greatest need for the 

funds and the strongest commitment to 

ensuring that the funds are used to 

provide adequate resources to enable 

the lowest-achieving schools to raise 

student achievement. 

Current final requirements: Section 

II.B.4 requires an SEA to give priority to 

LEAs that apply to serve both Tier I and 

Tier II schools and then give priority to 

LEAs that apply to serve Tier I, but not 

Tier II, schools. Section II.B.7 requires 

an SEA to award funds to LEAs that 

apply to serve only Tier III schools only 

after it funds all LEAs that apply to 

serve Tier I or Tier II schools. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements amend 

sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 (as well as 

various other sections—e.g., sections 

I.A.4(a), II.A.1, II.A.3) to give equal 

status to Tier I and Tier II schools. 

Accordingly, sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 

make clear that an LEA that applies to 

serve either Tier I or Tier II schools 

receives priority before an LEA that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3380 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

applies to serve only Tier III schools. 

Moreover, as section II.B.7 makes clear, 

an SEA must award SIG funds to each 

LEA to serve the Tier I and Tier II 

schools that the SEA has approved the 

LEA to serve before awarding any funds 

to an LEA to serve a Tier III school. In 

other words, an SEA must ensure that 

all Tier I and Tier II schools are funded 

before it funds the Tier III schools 

identified in its LEAs’ applications. 

Reasons: These provisions 

incorporate the expanded eligibility 

provisions in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 to best carry 

out the statutory priority in the ESEA 

requiring an SEA to award SIG funds to 

LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools 

that demonstrate the greatest need for 

the funds and the strongest commitment 

to use the funds to raise student 

achievement substantially. 

Section II.B.9—2010 SIG 

appropriations: 

Statute: The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated 

$546 million for SIG grants in FY 2010. 

Current final requirements: Section 

II.B.9 requires certain SEAs and permits 

other SEAs to carry over 25 percent of 

their FY 2009 SIG funds and to combine 

those funds with FY 2010 funds 

‘‘(depending on the availability of 

appropriations).’’ 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements remove the 

phrase ‘‘(depending on the availability 

of appropriations)’’ in section II.B.9(a) 

and (b). 

Reasons: Because the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated 

SIG funds for FY 2010, this language is 

no longer necessary. 

Section II.C—renewal for additional 

one-year periods: 

Statute: Section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the 

ESEA permits an SEA to renew an 

LEA’s SIG grant if schools are meeting 

the goals under section 1116 of the 

ESEA. 

Current final requirements: Section 

II.C requires an SEA to renew the SIG 

grant for each LEA for one-year periods 

if the LEA demonstrates that its Tier I 

and Tier II schools are meeting the 

requirements in section II.A.7 of the 

final SIG requirements and that its Tier 

III schools are meeting their goals under 

section 1116. 

Interim final requirements: The 

interim final requirements amend 

section II.C(a)(i) to require Tier III 

schools that receive SIG funds to meet 

‘‘goals established by the LEA and 

approved by the SEA.’’ 

Reasons: Under the expanded 

eligibility authority in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010, non-Title I 

schools may now be served as Tier III 

schools if they have missed AYP for at 

least two years or are in the lowest 

quintile in the State in terms of 

proficiency on a State’s reading/ 

language arts and mathematics 

assessments combined. Because those 

schools are not subject to meeting goals 

under section 1116 of the ESEA, the 

interim final requirements include a 

provision addressing accountability for 

those schools. This provision in the 

interim final requirements, therefore, 

treats all Tier III schools the same; 

however, to the extent they apply, an 

LEA may use as the goals for a Tier III 

school the goals in its school 

improvement plan under section 1116 

of the ESEA. 

Interim Final Requirements: 

For the reasons discussed previously, 

the Secretary amends the final SIG 

requirements published in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 

65618) as follows: 

1. Section I.A.1 is amended to read as 

follows: 

1. Greatest need. An LEA with the 

greatest need for a School Improvement 

Grant must have one or more schools in 

at least one of the following tiers: 

(a) Tier I schools: (i) A Tier I school 

is a Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that is 

identified by the SEA under paragraph 

(a)(1) of the definition of ‘‘persistently 

lowest-achieving schools.’’ 

(ii) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier I school an elementary 

school that is eligible for Title I, Part A 

funds that— 

(A)(1) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(2) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ 

(b) Tier II schools: (i) A Tier II school 

is a secondary school that is eligible for, 

but does not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds and is identified by the SEA 

under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition 

of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

schools.’’ 

(ii) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier II school a secondary 

school that is eligible for Title I, Part A 

funds that— 

(A)(1) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(2) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B)(1) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools;’’ or 

(2) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

(c) Tier III schools: (i) A Tier III school 

is a Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that is 

not a Tier I school. 

(ii) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier III school a school that 

is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that— 

(A)(1) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two years; or 

(2) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B) Does not meet the requirements to 

be a Tier I or Tier II school. 

(iii) An SEA may establish additional 

criteria to use in setting priorities among 

LEA applications for funding and to 

encourage LEAs to differentiate among 

Tier III schools in their use of school 

improvement funds. 

2. The introductory language in 

section I.A.4 is amended to read as 

follows: 

4. Evidence of strongest commitment. 

(a) In determining the strength of an 

LEA’s commitment to ensuring that 

school improvement funds are used to 

provide adequate resources to enable 

Tier I and Tier II schools to improve 

student achievement substantially, an 

SEA must consider, at a minimum, the 

extent to which the LEA’s application 

demonstrates that the LEA has taken, or 

will take, action to— 

* * * * * 

3. Section I.B.2 is amended to read as 

follows: 

2. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary of the requirements in section 

1116(b) of the ESEA in order to permit 

a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating 

school implementing an intervention 

that meets the requirements under 

section I.A.2(a) or 2(b) of these 

requirements in an LEA that receives a 

School Improvement Grant to ‘‘start 

over’’ in the school improvement 

timeline. Even though a school 

implementing the waiver would no 

longer be in improvement, corrective 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3381 

action, or restructuring, it may receive 

school improvement funds. 

4. Section I.B.3 is amended to read as 

follows: 

3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to enable a Tier I or Tier II 

Title I participating school that is 

ineligible to operate a Title I schoolwide 

program and is operating a Title I 

targeted assistance program to operate a 

schoolwide program in order to 

implement an intervention that meets 

the requirements under section I.A.2(a), 

2(b), or 2(d) of these requirements. 

5. Section I.B.4 is removed. 

6. Sections I.B.5 and 6 are 

redesignated as sections I.B.4 and 5, 

respectively. 

7. Section I.B.5, as redesignated, is 

amended to read as follows: 

5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver 

under section I.B.2, 3, or 4, an LEA may 

seek a waiver. 

8. Section II.A.1 is amended to read 

as follows: 

A. LEA requirements. 

1. An LEA may apply for a School 

Improvement Grant if it receives Title I, 

Part A funds and has one or more 

schools that qualify under the State’s 

definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III 

school. 

9. Section II.A.3 is amended to read 

as follows: 

3. The LEA must serve each Tier I 

school unless the LEA demonstrates that 

it lacks sufficient capacity (which may 

be due, in part, to serving Tier II 

schools) to undertake one of these 

rigorous interventions in each Tier I 

school, in which case the LEA must 

indicate the Tier I schools that it can 

effectively serve. An LEA may not serve 

with school improvement funds 

awarded under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA a Tier I or Tier II school in which 

it does not implement one of the four 

interventions identified in section I.A.2 

of these requirements. 

10. Section II.A.4 is amended to read 

as follows: 

4. The LEA’s budget for each Tier I 

and Tier II school it commits to serve 

must be of sufficient size and scope to 

ensure that the LEA can implement one 

of the rigorous interventions identified 

in section I.A.2 of these requirements. 

The LEA’s budget must cover the period 

of availability of the school 

improvement funds, taking into account 

any waivers extending the period of 

availability received by the SEA or LEA. 

11. Section II.A.5 is amended to read 

as follows: 

5. The LEA’s budget for each Tier III 

school it commits to serve must include 

the services it will provide the school, 

particularly if the school meets 

additional criteria established by the 

SEA. 

12. Sections II.A.6, 7, and 8 are 

redesignated as sections II.A.7, 8, and 9, 

respectively, and a new section II.A.6 is 

added to read as follows: 

6. An LEA that commits to serve one 

or more Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools 

that do not receive Title I, Part A funds 

must ensure that each such school it 

serves receives all of the State and local 

funds it would have received in the 

absence of the school improvement 

funds. 

13. Section II.B.4 is amended to read 

as follows: 

4. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

school improvement funds to award, for 

up to three years, a grant to each LEA 

that submits an approvable application, 

the SEA must give priority to LEAs that 

apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools. 

14. Section II.B.5 is amended to read 

as follows: 

5. An SEA must award a School 

Improvement Grant to an LEA in an 

amount that is of sufficient size and 

scope to support the activities required 

under section 1116 of the ESEA and 

these requirements. The LEA’s total 

grant may not be less than $50,000 or 

more than $2,000,000 per year for each 

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school that the 

LEA commits to serve. 

15. Section II.B.6 is removed. 

16. Sections II.B.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

and 13 are redesignated as sections 

II.B.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 

respectively. 

17. Section II.B.7, as redesignated, is 

amended to read as follows: 

7. An SEA must award funds to serve 

each Tier I and Tier II school that its 

LEAs commit to serve, and that the SEA 

determines its LEAs have the capacity to 

serve, prior to awarding funds to its 

LEAs to serve any Tier III schools. If an 

SEA has awarded school improvement 

funds to its LEAs for each Tier I and 

Tier II school that its LEAs commit to 

serve in accordance with these 

requirements, the SEA may then, 

consistent with section II.B.9, award 

remaining school improvement funds to 

its LEAs for the Tier III schools that its 

LEAs commit to serve. 

18. Section II.B.9, as redesignated, is 

amended to read as follows: 

9. (a) If not every Tier I school in a 

State is served with FY 2009 school 

improvement funds, an SEA must carry 

over 25 percent of its FY 2009 funds, 

combine those funds with FY 2010 

school improvement funds, and award 

those funds to eligible LEAs consistent 

with these requirements. This 

requirement does not apply in a State 

that does not have sufficient school 

improvement funds to serve all the Tier 

I schools in the State. 

(b) If each Tier I school in a State is 

served with FY 2009 school 

improvement funds, an SEA may 

reserve up to 25 percent of its FY 2009 

allocation and award those funds in 

combination with its FY 2010 funds 

consistent with these requirements. 

19. Section II.C is amended to read as 

follows: 

C. Renewal for additional one-year 

periods. 

(a) If an SEA or an individual LEA 

requests and receives a waiver of the 

period of availability of school 

improvement funds, an SEA— 

(i) Must renew the School 

Improvement Grant for each affected 

LEA for additional one-year periods 

commensurate with the period of 

availability if the LEA demonstrates that 

its Tier I and Tier II schools are meeting 

the requirements in section II.A.8, and 

that its Tier III schools are meeting the 

goals established by the LEA and 

approved by the SEA; and 

(ii) May renew an LEA’s School 

Improvement Grant if the SEA 

determines that the LEA’s schools are 

making progress toward meeting the 

requirements in section II.A.8 or the 

goals established by the LEA. 

(b) If an SEA does not renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant because the 

LEA’s participating schools are not 

meeting the requirements in section 

II.A.8 or the goals established by the 

LEA, the SEA may reallocate those 

funds to other eligible LEAs, consistent 

with these requirements. 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may (1) have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, or adversely affect a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

tribal governments or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an 

‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2) 

create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or local 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3382 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Potential Costs and Benefits 

Under Executive Order 12866, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action and 

have determined that this rule will not 

impose additional costs to SEA 

applicants, SEA grantees, or the Federal 

government. The Department is 

regulating only to incorporate two new 

legislative provisions into the existing 

final SIG requirements, both of which 

add flexibility to the final requirements. 

One provision raises the maximum 

subgrant size for a participating school. 

The other provision permits an SEA or 

LEA, at its discretion, to serve schools 

not covered by the final SIG 

requirements. However, because this 

regulatory action makes additional LEAs 

eligible to apply for and receive SIG 

funds, it may result in additional costs 

to these newly eligible LEAs. As shown 

below in the section on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, we estimate that an 

additional 500 LEAs may apply for SIG 

funds, at a total cost of $750,000 ($1,500 

per applicant). We also estimate that 

approximately 200 additional successful 

applicants would spend a total of 

$200,000 ($1,000 per applicant) to meet 

SIG reporting requirements. The 

Department notes that these estimates 

assume that SEAs and LEAs will, in 

fact, exercise the discretion provided in 

these interim final requirements to serve 

additional LEAs and schools and that 

these LEAs and schools will qualify for 

SIG awards under the requirements and 

priorities governing the SIG program. It 

is possible that very few of these newly 

eligible LEAs will apply for and 

compete successfully for SIG funds. For 

those that do, the benefits of 

participating in the SIG program exceed 

the costs by a wide margin, as the 

program is specifically designed to 

provide sufficient resources (as much as 

$2,000,000 annually over a three-year 

period) to turn around an LEA’s 

persistently lowest-achieving schools. 

Similarly, the benefits of this regulatory 

action far outweigh any unforeseen 

administrative costs to the Federal 

government in administering the SIG 

program. The Department has also 

determined that this regulatory action 

does not unduly interfere with State, 

local, and tribal governments in the 

exercise of their governmental 

functions. 

Clarity of the Requirements 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum on ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. The 

Secretary invites comments on how to 

make these interim final requirements 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the interim final requirements 

clearly stated? 

• Do the interim final requirements 

contain technical terms or other 

wording that interferes with their 

clarity? 

• Does the format of the interim final 

requirements (grouping and order of 

sections, use of heading, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the interim final 

requirements be easier to understand if 

we divided them into more (but shorter) 

sections? 

• Could the description of the interim 

final requirements in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the interim final requirements 

easier to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

interim final requirements easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

interim final requirements easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

interim final requirements will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Under the U.S. Small Business 

Administration’s Size Standards, small 

entities include small governmental 

jurisdictions such as cities, towns, or 

school districts (LEAs) with a 

population of less than 50,000. 

Approximately 11,900 LEAs that receive 

Title I, Part A funds qualify as small 

entities under this definition. However, 

the small entities that the interim final 

requirements will affect are small LEAs 

receiving SIG funds under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA—i.e., a small LEA 

that has one or more schools eligible to 

receive SIG funds and that meets the 

SEA’s priorities for greatest need for 

those funds and demonstrates the 

strongest commitment to use the funds 

to provide adequate resources to their 

lowest-achieving schools to raise 

substantially the achievement of their 

students. 

SEAs will develop their own 

definitions for their Tier I, Tier II, and 

Tier III schools, consistent with these 

interim final requirements, but 

preliminary data analyses by the 

Department suggest that 15–25 percent 

of the lowest-achieving schools in the 

Nation are located in rural areas, which 

are likely to contain most of the targeted 

schools that are operated by small LEAs. 

Assuming a maximum of 1,100 Tier I 

and Tier II schools nationwide, and that 

few if any rural LEAs will contain more 

than one of their State’s lowestachieving schools, there would be a 

range of 165 to 275 small LEAs affected 

by these interim final requirements, 

including a limited number of small 

suburban and urban LEAs. 

These interim final requirements will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on these small LEAs because (1) the 

costs of implementing the required 

interventions would be covered by the 

grants received by successful applicants, 

and (2) the costs of submitting 

applications would not be higher than 

the costs that would be incurred in 

applying for SIG grants under the 

existing final SIG requirements. 

Successful LEAs will receive up to 

three years of funding under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA to implement their 

proposed interventions, consistent with 

the current final SIG requirements that 

SEAs ensure that awards are of 

sufficient size and duration to turn 

around the Nation’s persistently lowestachieving schools. 

Small LEAs may incur costs to 

develop and submit applications for 

turning around their lowest-achieving 

schools but, in general, such costs 

would be similar to those incurred to 

apply for SIG funding under existing 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Moreover, because most of the schools 

included in the applications submitted 

by small LEAs will be schools that 

already are in improvement status, these 

LEAs will be able to incorporate existing 

data analysis and planning into their 

applications at little additional cost. 

Also, small LEAs may receive technical 

assistance and other support from their 

SEAs in developing their applications 

for SIG funds. 

In addition, the Department believes 

the benefits provided under these 

interim final requirements will 

outweigh the burdens on small LEAs of 

complying with the requirements. In 

particular, the interim final 

requirements potentially make available 

to eligible small LEAs significant 

resources to make the fundamental 

changes needed to turn around their 

lowest-achieving schools, resources that 

otherwise may not be available to small 

and often geographically isolated LEAs. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3383 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small LEAs as to whether they believe 

these interim final requirements will 

have a significant economic impact on 

them and, if so, requests evidence to 

support that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The interim final requirements 

contain information collection 

requirements that are subject to review 

by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). The Department had received 

previously emergency approval for the 

information collections in the final SIG 

requirements published on December 

10, 2009, under OMB Control Number 

1810–0682. The Department will submit 

to OMB a Paperwork Reduction Act 

Change Worksheet for this collection 

that will include the changes described 

below. 

In the interim final requirements, the 

Department is increasing its estimates of 

the number of LEAs that will apply for 

and have to report on using SIG funds 

from the estimates included in the 

December 10, 2009, final SIG 

requirements. This change factors in the 

provision in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 regarding 

which schools are eligible to receive SIG 

funds, which will likely increase the 

number of LEAs that apply to their SEA 

for these funds. The Department used its 

data on the number of LEAs receiving 

Title I, Part A funds and the proportion 

of LEAs with identified schools to 

estimate the new figures. The estimates 

for SEAs remain the same because the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

changes do not affect the number of 

SEAs that can apply. 

A description of the specific 

information collection requirements is 

provided in the following tables along 

with estimates of the annual 

recordkeeping burden for these 

requirements. The estimates include 

time for an SEA and an LEA to prepare 

their respective applications (including 

requests for waivers), an SEA to review 

an LEA’s application, and an LEA to 

report data to an SEA and the SEA to 

report those data to the Department. The 

first table shows the estimated burden 

for SEAs and the second table shows the 

estimated burden for LEAs. 

STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATES* 

SIG activity Number of 

SEAs 

Hours/ 

activity Hours Cost/hour Cost 

Complete SEA application (including requests for waivers) ................... 52 100 5,200 $30 $156,000 

Review and post LEA applications .......................................................... 52 800 41,600 30 1,248,000 

Collect and report school-level data to the Department ** ...................... 52 80 4,160 30 124,800 

Total .................................................................................................. .................... .................... 50,960 30 1,528,800 

* The SEA estimates remain the same from the December 10, 2009, final SIG requirements. 

** These are data the Department does not currently collect through EDFacts. 

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATES

SIG activity Number 

of LEAs 

Hours/ 

activity Hours Cost/hour Cost 

Complete LEA application (including requests for waivers if the SEA 

does not so request) ............................................................................ 3,050 60 183,000 $25 $4,575,000

Report data to SEA* ................................................................................ 1,200 40 48,000 25 1,200,000

Total .................................................................................................. .................... .................... 231,000 25 5,775,000 

* These are data the Department does not currently collect through EDFacts. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR 79. 

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. 

To use PDF, you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. 

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: January 13, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1048 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket Nos. MC2010–7 and CP2010–7; 

Order No. 361] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adding 

Express Mail Contract 7 to the 

Competitive Product List. This action is 

consistent with a postal reform law. 

Republication of the lists of market 

dominant and competitive products is 

also consistent with statutory 

requirements. 

DATES: Effective January 21, 2010 and is 

applicable beginning December 15, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 57538 (November 6, 

2009). 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Comments 

IV. Commission Analysis 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

The Postal Service seeks to add a new 

product identified as Express Mail 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES