Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Notices 26801 

jon.romeo@usace.army.mil. Your 

comments must be contained in the 

body of your message; please do not 

send attached filed. Please include your 

name and address in your message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE

CONTACT: Mr. Jon Romeo, (410) 962–

6079. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS 

integrates analyses and consultation 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 

401 and Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. All appropriate 

documentation (i.e., Section 7 and 

Section 106 coordination letters and 

public and agency comments) have been 

obtained and are included as part of the 

FEIS. In compliance with the Clean Air 

Act, a Draft Air Quality General 

Conformity Determination has been 

completed and is available in the FEIS 

for public comment. The USACE has 

preliminarily determined that the 

General Conformity Analysis prepared 

for the proposed Masonville Dredged 

Material Containment Facility (DMCF) 

dated November 17, 2006, with the 

compensation proposed, conforms to 

the General Conformity requirements of 

the Clean Air Act. A final determination 

will be made no sooner than thirty (30) 

days from the date of this notice. the 

decision on whether or not to issue a 

Department of the Army permit for this 

project will be based on an evaluation 

of the probable impact, including 

cumulative impacts, of the proposed 

activity on the public interest. That 

decision will reflect the national 

concern for both protection and 

utilization of important resources. The 

benefit, which may reasonably be 

expected to accrue from the proposal, 

will be balanced against it reasonably 

foreseeable detriments. All factors that 

may be relevant to the proposal are 

considered as part of the evaluation 

process. Factors relevant to the 

proposed project include: Conservation, 

economics, aesthetics, general 

environmental concerns, wetlands, 

cultural values, fish and wildlife values, 

flood hazards, floodplain values, land 

use, navigation, shoreline erosion and 

accretion, recreation, water supply and 

conservation, water and air quality, 

hazardous, toxic, and radioactive 

substances, threatened and endangered 

species, regional geology energy needs, 

food and fiber production, safety, 

environmental justice, cumulative 

impacts and the general needs and 

welfare of the public. 

Vance G. Hobbs, 

Chief, Maryland Section Northern. 

[FR Doc. 07–2338 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–41–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy 

Board of Visitors 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of partially closed 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Naval Academy 

Board of Visitors will meet to make such 

inquiry, as the Board shall deem 

necessary into the state of morale and 

discipline, the curriculum, instruction, 

physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and 

academic methods of the Naval 

Academy. The meeting will include 

discussions of personnel issues at the 

Naval Academy, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. The 

executive session of this meeting will be 

closed to the public. 

DATES: The open session of the meeting 

will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, 

from 8 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. The closed 

Executive Session will be held from 

11:10 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the United States Naval Academy, 

Annapolis, Maryland. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Major Craig C. Clemans, Executive 

Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office 

of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval 

Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402–5000, 

410–293–1503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of meeting is provided per the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session of 

the meeting will consist of discussions 

of personnel issues at the Naval 

Academy and internal Board of Visitors 

matters. The proposed closed session 

from 1030–1215 will include a 

discussion of new and pending courtsmartial and state criminal proceedings 

involving the Midshipmen attending the 

Naval Academy to include an update on 

the pending/ongoing sexual assault 

cases, rape cases, etc. The proposed 

closed session from 1030–1215 will 

include a discussion of new and 

pending administrative/minor 

disciplinary infractions and nonjudicial 

punishments involving the Midshipmen 

attending the Naval Academy to include 

but not limited to individual honor/ 

conduct violations within the Brigade. 

Discussion of such information cannot 

be adequately segregated from other 

topics, which precludes opening the 

executive session of this meeting to the 

public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the 

Navy has determined in writing that the 

meeting shall be partially closed to the 

public because it will be concerned with 

matters listed in section 552b(c), (5), (6), 

(7) and of title 5, United States Code. 

Dated: May 7, 2007. 

L.R. Almand, 

Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

Administrative Law Division, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–9085 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before July 10, 

2007. 

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. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The IC Clearance 

Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, publishes that notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
26802 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Notices 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

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. 

Dated: May 8, 2007. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

Policy Development 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Annual Mandatory Collection of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Data for EDFacts. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 59. 

Burden Hours: 105,754. 

Abstract: EDFacts is in the 

implementation phase of a multiple year 

effort to consolidate the collection of 

education information about States, 

Districts, and Schools in a way that 

improves data quality and reduces 

paperwork burden for all of the national 

education partners. To minimize the 

burden on the data providers, EDEN 

seeks the transfer of the proposed data 

as soon as it has been processed for 

State, District, and School use. These 

data will then be stored in EDFacts and 

accessed by federal education program 

managers and analysts as needed to 

make program management decisions. 

This process will eliminate redundant 

data collections while providing for the 

timeliness of data submission and use. 

Additional Information: The 

Department of Education (ED) is 

specifically requesting the data 

providers in each the State Education 

Agency (SEA) to review the proposed 

data elements to determine which of 

these data can be provided for the 

upcoming school year and which data 

would be available in later years and 

which data, if any, is never expected to 

be available from the SEA. If 

information for a data group is not 

available, please provide information 

beyond the fact that it is not available. 

Are there specific impediments to 

providing this data that you can 

describe? Is the definition for the data 

group unclear or ambiguous? Do the 

requested permitted values align with 

the way your state collects the data? 

This is very important information 

because ED intends to make the 

collection of these data mandatory. ED 

also seeks to know if the SEA data 

definitions are consistent and 

compatible with the EDEN definitions 

and accurately reflect the way data is 

stored and used for education by the 

States, Districts, and Schools. The 

answers to these questions by the data 

providers will influence the timing and 

content of the final EDEN proposal for 

the collection of this elementary and 

secondary data. 

Additional Information for State Data 

Providers: In addition to overall public 

comments, ED would also like state 

education data providers to respond to 

a number of specific questions that were 

developed during the recent data 

definition cycle. 

(1) Data Groups—An underlying 

purpose of the EDFacts Data Set is to 

inventory the data collected by ED. That 

inventory is organized into data groups 

and categories. In general, each table 

data group is its own file. Three data 

groups (Title I SWP/TAS Participation 

Tables ID 548, N or D Academic 

Outcomes Table (LEAs) ID 629, and N 

or D Academic Outcomes Table (State 

agencies) ID 628) were split so that the 

data groups would meet the definition 

of ‘‘a specific aggregation (i.e. group) of 

related data that is stored in EDFacts to 

satisfy the specific information need of 

one or more ED program office.’’ Are 

there any other data groups that should 

be split? Are there any data groups that 

should be combined? 

(2) Categories—Data on students is 

collected by categories 

(characterizations used to aggregate data 

e.g. race/ethnicity, sex, grade level). In 

some cases, the data by these 

characterizations isn’t required on all 

students. For example, data on the 

results of NCLB assessments is required 

to be aggregated by students with a 

disability status (IDEA) and by students 

who have been assessed as limited 

English proficient. Data is not required 

by statute to be aggregated by either 

students without a disability status 

(IDEA) or students who have not been 

assessed as limited English proficient. 

However, that data is useful to the 

Department for both data quality and 

analysis. There are times when data is 

required to be aggregated for all 

students. For example, data on the 

provision of educational services during 

expulsion is required by statute to be 

aggregated for both students with a 

disability status (IDEA) and without a 

disability status (IDEA). What is the 

burden for the SEA when aggregating 

data for only those students with the 

characteristics in comparison to 

aggregating for both students with the 

characteristic and without it for the 

following characteristics: Disability 

status (IDEA), assessed for limited 

English proficiency, homeless status, 

homeless served under McKinney-Vento 

status, economically disadvantaged 

status, and migrant status? 

(3) Status Files—The status files 

contain the non-table data groups. The 

non-table data groups included in the 

NCLB Start of School Year File 

(N/X101) are: 

• District Totals, ID # 460 

• Improvement Status—LEA, ID #662 

• Improvement Status—School, ID 

#34 

• Integrated Technology Status, ID 

#524 

• Persistently Dangerous Status, ID 

#36 

• School Poverty Percentage, ID #31 

• School Totals, ID #454 

• Shared Time Status, ID #573 

• Title I School Status, ID #22 

• Magnet Status, ID #665 

• Classroom Teachers (FTE), ID #644 

The non-table data groups included in 

the NCLB End of School Year File 

(N/X102) are: 

• Economically Disadvantaged 

Students, ID #56 

• Combined MEP Funds Status Table, 

ID #514 

• GFSA Reporting Status, ID #603 

• REAP Alternative Funding 

Indicator, ID #614 

• Average Daily Attendance, ID #595 

• Supplemental Services—Applied to 

Receive Services, ID #575 

• Supplemental Services—Eligible to 

Receive Services, ID #578 

• Supplemental Services—Received 

Services, ID #546 

• Supplemental Services—Funds 

Spent, ID #651 

• School Choice—Funds Spent, ID 

#652 

• Truants, ID #664 

• MEP Students Eligible Regular 

School Year, ID #110 

Are these status files properly 

organized to ensure the timely 

submission of data and reduce burden? 

If not, how should the non-table data 

groups be organized? 

(4) Migrant Education Program—The 

EDFacts data set did not completely 

align with the collection of data for the 

Migrant Education Program (MEP), Title 

I, Part C through the Consolidated State 

Performance Report (CSPR) and Migrant 

Child Count Form. The data groups 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Notices 26803 

collecting data on the MEP Program 

have been revised accordingly. The 

chart below displays the relationship 

among the data groups for students. 

Type of MEP student 

Type of MEP count 

12-month Regular school 

year 

Summer/ 

intersession 

Eligible ................................................................................................................................ 634 (SEA) ......... 110 (school) ......

Served (no Schoolwide) ..................................................................................................... ........................... 636 (SEA) ......... 637 (SEA) 

Eligible and Served ............................................................................................................. ........................... ........................... 635 (SEA) 

Are the revised definitions and 

comments sufficient to describe the data 

that should be collected? 

(5) School Operational Status—The 

data group School Operational Status 

(ID 531) has the following permitted 

values: Open, closed, new, added, 

changed agency, inactive, future school, 

reopened. Is a new permitted value 

needed for restructured under NCLB? 

Do SEAs create new schools when a 

school is restructured under NCLB? Are 

new state school identification numbers 

assigned when a school is restructured 

under NCLB? Do schools that are 

restructured under NCLB met the 

definition of open which is ‘‘no 

significant change in instructional levels 

and programs?’’

(6) GEPA—As discussed in 

Attachment B–4, the General Education 

Provisions Act (GEPA), Section 424 

mandates reporting on the distribution 

of federal education funds to school 

districts and other entities, such as 

libraries, colleges and universities, state 

agencies, individual schools and private 

recipients. In the past, the data for the 

GEPA report has been collected through 

a separate collection. For the GEPA 

report on FYs 2006 and 2007, the data 

will be obtained for state administered 

grants to LEAs through EDFacts. How 

will this change impact SEAs? What 

must ED do to make this transition 

successful? How should ED collect data 

on state administered grants that do not 

go to SEAs or LEAs? 

(7) Reading NCLB State 

Assessments—EDFacts collects data on 

participation and results of NCLB state 

assessments. Data is collected on 

mathematics, reading, and science. The 

data on participation is collected in one 

file (N/X081) using permitted values to 

differentiate between the academic 

subjects. The data on the results of 

NCLB state assessments is collected in 

separate files. For mathematics and 

science, the participation file has one 

permitted value for each and both have 

one file to collect the results of state 

assessments. For reading, the 

participation file has three permitted 

values and the results of state 

assessments are collected using three 

files. The three values and files are 

entitled reading, reading/language arts, 

and language arts. Can the reading 

participation and results of state 

assessments be collected using only one 

permitted value (reading) and one file 

(reading)? 

Requests for 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 3334. 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., 

Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, 

DC 20202–4700. Requests may also be 

electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202–

245–6623. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection when 

making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. 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. 07–2354 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4001–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Student Aid, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of the annual updates to 

the Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) 

plan formula for 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces the 

annual updates to the ICR plan formula 

for 2007. Under the William D. Ford 

Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) 

Program, borrowers may choose to repay 

their student loans (Direct Subsidized 

Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and 

Direct Consolidation Loans) under the 

ICR plan, which bases the repayment 

amount on the borrower’s income, 

family size, loan amount, and interest 

rate. Each year, we adjust the formula 

for calculating a borrower’s payment to 

reflect changes due to inflation. This 

notice contains the adjusted income 

percentage factors for 2007, examples of 

how the calculation of the monthly ICR 

amount is performed, a constant 

multiplier chart for use in performing 

the calculations, and charts showing 

sample repayment amounts based on 

the adjusted ICR plan formula. The 

adjustments for the ICR plan formula 

contained in this notice are effective 

from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Watson, U.S. Department of Education, 

room 114I2, UCP, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202–

5400. Telephone: (202) 219–7037. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Direct 

Loan Program borrowers may choose to 

repay their Direct Subsidized Loans, 

Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct 

Consolidation Loans under the ICR 

plan. The attachments to this notice 

provide updates to examples of how the 

calculation of the monthly ICR amount 

is performed, the updated income 

percentage factors, a constant multiplier 

chart for use in calculating the monthly 

ICR amount, and charts showing sample 

repayment amounts for single and 

married borrowers. 

We have updated the income 

percentage factors to reflect changes 

based on inflation. We have revised the 

table of income percentage factors by 

changing the dollar amounts of the 

incomes shown by a percentage equal to 

the estimated percentage change in the 

Consumer Price Index for all urban 

consumers from December 2006 to 

December 2007. Further, we provide 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES