Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 22909 

the verification documentation to eApplication are in the application package 

for this competition. 

(B) Tiebreaker for Development 

Grants. In tie-breaking situations for 

development grants described in 34 CFR 

606.23(b), the HSI Program regulations 

require that we award one additional 

point to an application from an IHE that 

has an endowment fund of which the 

current market value, per FTE enrolled 

student, is less than the average current 

market value of the endowment funds, 

per FTE enrolled student, at comparable 

institutions that offer similar 

instruction. We also award one 

additional point to an application from 

an IHE that had expenditures for library 

materials per FTE enrolled student that 

are less than the average expenditures 

for library materials per FTE enrolled 

student at comparable institutions that 

offer similar instruction. 

For the purpose of these funding 

considerations, we use 2006–2007 data. 

If a tie remains after applying the 

tiebreaker mechanism above, priority 

will be given (a) for Individual 

Development Grants, to applicants that 

addressed the statutory priority found in 

section 521(d) of the HEA, as amended; 

and (b) for Cooperative Arrangement 

Development Grants, to applicants in 

accordance with section 524(b) of the 

HEA, under which the Secretary 

determines that the cooperative 

arrangement is geographically and 

economically sound or will benefit the 

applicant HSI. 

If a tie still remains after applying the 

additional point(s), and the relevant 

statutory priority, we will determine the 

ranking of applicants based on the 

lowest endowment values per FTE 

enrolled student. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may notify you informally, 

also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: At the end of your 

project period, you must submit a final 

performance report, including financial 

information, as directed by the 

Secretary. If you receive a multi-year 

award, you must submit an annual 

performance report that provides the 

most current performance and financial 

expenditure information as directed by 

the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118, 34 CFR 

75.720 and in 34 CFR 606.31. 

4. Performance Measures: The 

Secretary has established the following 

key performance measures for assessing 

the effectiveness of the HSI Program: (1) 

The percentage change, over the fiveyear grant period, of the number of fulltime degree-seeking undergraduate 

students enrolled at HSIs. (2) The 

percentage of first-time, full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students 

who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the 

previous year and are enrolled in the 

current year at the same Hispanicserving institution. (3) The percentage of 

first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students who were in 

their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are 

enrolled in the current year at the same 

four-year Hispanic-serving institution. 

(4) The percentage of first-time, fulltime degree-seeking undergraduate 

students who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the 

previous year and are enrolled in the 

current year at the same two-year 

Hispanic-serving institution. (5) The 

percentage of first-time, full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students 

enrolled at four-year HSIs graduating 

within six years of enrollment. (6) The 

percentage of first-time, full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students 

enrolled at two-year HSIs graduating 

within three years of enrollment. (7) 

Federal cost per undergraduate and 

graduate degree at institutions in the 

Developing HSIs program. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carnisia M. Proctor, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 6th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20006–8513. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7606 or by e-mail: 

Carnisia.Proctor@ed.gov. 

If you use TDD, call the FRS, toll free, 

at 1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities may obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed in this section. 

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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC area at (202) 512–1530. 

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. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Daniel T. Madzelan, Director, 

Forecasting and Policy Analysis for the 

Office of Postsecondary Education to 

perform the functions of the Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education. 

Dated: May 12, 2009. 

Daniel T. Madzelan, 

Director, Forecasting and Policy Analysis. 

[FR Doc. E9–11414 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Waivers Granted Under 

Section 9401 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

Amended 

SUMMARY: In this notice, we announce 

the waivers that the U.S. Department of 

Education (Department) granted during 

calendar year 2008 under the waiver 

authority in section 9401 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. 

In 2008, the Department granted a 

total of 51 waivers under the ESEA 

section 9401 waiver authority. The 

waivers granted were as follows: (1) 

Four waivers related to Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, and Ike; (2) two new 

waivers allowing implementation of the 

‘‘growth model pilot,’’ and nine 

extensions of existing waivers to 

continue implementation of a ‘‘growth 

model pilot’’; (3) six new waivers 

allowing implementation of the 

‘‘differentiated accountability model 

pilot’’; (4) one new waiver and four 

continuations of existing waivers 

allowing local educational agencies 

(LEAs) in need of improvement to be 

22910 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 

eligible to apply to their State 

educational agency (SEA) to become 

supplemental educational services (SES) 

providers; (5) four new waivers and 

three continuations of existing waivers 

allowing LEAs to provide SES to eligible 

students attending schools that receive 

funding under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA (Title I schools) and are in the 

first year of school improvement; (6) one 

Title I schoolwide eligibility waiver; (7) 

one Title I, Part A within-district 

allocation waiver; (8) one waiver of the 

ESEA transferability rules; (9) one 

‘‘local-flex’’ waiver; (10) four waivers to 

the Consolidated Grants restrictions; 

and (11) ten waivers allowing recipients 

of funds under the Indian Education 

program to charge additional 

administrative costs to the program. 

Waiver Data: 

Waivers Related to Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Ike 

1. Waiver Applicant: Louisiana 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Tydings 

Amendment, section 421(b) of the 

General Education Provisions Act 

(GEPA). 

• Date waiver granted: May 6, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

until September 30, 2009 the period of 

availability for fiscal year 2006 funds for 

all programs authorized under the 

ESEA. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Mississippi 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Tydings 

Amendment, section 421(b) of GEPA. 

• Date waiver granted: October 7, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

until September 30, 2009 the period of 

availability for fiscal year 2006 Title II, 

Part A funds. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Mississippi 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Tydings 

Amendment, section 421(b) of GEPA. 

• Date waiver granted: October 7, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

until September 30, 2009 the period of 

availability for fiscal year 2006 Title I, 

Part B, Subpart 1 funds. 

4. Waiver Applicant: Texas Education 

Agency. 

• Provision waived: Tydings 

Amendment, section 421(b) of GEPA. 

• Date waiver granted: October 9, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

until September 30, 2009 the period of 

availability for fiscal year 2006 Title I, 

Part B, Subpart 1 funds. 

II. ‘‘Growth Model Pilots’’ 

New Applicants: 

1. Waiver Applicant: Michigan 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: June 10, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Michigan the flexibility to implement a 

growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) beginning in the 2007– 

2008 school year. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Missouri 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: June 10, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Missouri the flexibility to implement a 

growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining AYP beginning in 

the 2007–2008 school year, conditioned 

upon Missouri’s adopting a uniform 

minimum group size for all subgroups, 

including students with disabilities and 

limited English proficient students. 

Continuation Applicants: 

1. Waiver Applicant: Alaska 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Alaska the flexibility to continue to use 

a growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining AYP in 2008–2009 

based on assessments administered in 

the 2007–2008 school year. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Arizona 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Arizona the flexibility to continue to use 

a growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining AYP in 2008–2009 

based on assessments administered in 

the 2007–2008 school year. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Arkansas 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Arkansas the flexibility to continue to 

use a growth-based accountability 

model as part of determining AYP in 

2008–2009 based on assessments 

administered in the 2007–2008 school 

year. 

4. Waiver Applicant: Delaware 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Delaware the flexibility to continue to 

use a growth-based accountability 

model as part of determining AYP in 

2008–2009 based on assessments 

administered in the 2007–2008 school 

year. 

5. Waiver Applicant: Florida 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Florida the flexibility to continue to use 

a growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining AYP in 2008–2009 

based on assessments administered in 

the 2007–2008 school year. 

6. Waiver Applicant: Iowa Department 

of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Iowa the flexibility to continue to use a 

growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining AYP in 2008–2009 

based on assessments administered in 

the 2007–2008 school year. 

7. Waiver Applicant: North Carolina 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

North Carolina the flexibility to 

continue to use a growth-based 

accountability model as part of 

determining AYP in 2008–2009 based 

on assessments administered in the 

2007–2008 school year. 

8. Waiver Applicant: Ohio 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Ohio the flexibility to continue to use a 

growth-based accountability model as 

part of determining AYP in 2008–2009 

based on assessments administered in 

the 2007–2008 school year. 

9. Waiver Applicant: Tennessee 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Extended 

Tennessee the flexibility to continue to 

use a growth-based accountability 

model as part of determining AYP in 

2008–2009 based on assessments 

administered in the 2007–2008 school 

year. 

III. ‘‘Differentiated Accountability 

Model Pilots’’ 

1. Waiver Applicant: Florida 

Department of Education 

• Provision waived: Section 1116 of 

the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 1, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Florida the flexibility to include its 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 22911 

differentiated accountability model as a 

part of its system of school 

improvement interventions based on 

assessment results from the 2007–2008 

school year. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Georgia 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 1116 of 

the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 1, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Georgia the flexibility to include its 

differentiated accountability model as a 

part of its system of school 

improvement interventions based on 

assessment results from the 2007–2008 

school year. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Illinois 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 1116 of 

the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 1, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Illinois the flexibility to include its 

differentiated accountability model as a 

part of its system of school 

improvement interventions based on 

assessment results from the 2007–2008 

school year. 

4. Waiver Applicant: Indiana 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 1116 of 

the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 1, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Indiana the flexibility to include its 

differentiated accountability model as a 

part of its system of school 

improvement interventions based on 

assessment results from the 2007–2008 

school year. 

5. Waiver Applicant: Maryland 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 1116 of 

the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 1, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Maryland the flexibility to include its 

differentiated accountability model as a 

part of its system of school 

improvement interventions based on 

assessment results from the 2007–2008 

school year. 

6. Waiver Applicant: Ohio 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 1116 of 

the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: July 1, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

Ohio the flexibility to include its 

differentiated accountability model as a 

part of its system of school 

improvement interventions based on 

assessment results from the 2007–2008 

school year. 

IV. Allowing LEAs in Need of 

Improvement To Be Eligible To Apply 

to Their SEA To Become Supplemental 

Educational Services (SES) Providers 

New Applicant: 

1. Waiver Applicant: CharlotteMecklenburg Schools, NC. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 

200.47(b)(1)(iv)(B). 

• Date waiver granted: August 4, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permitted 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to be 

eligible to apply to its SEA to become 

a provider of SES to eligible students 

during the 2008–2009 school year even 

though the LEA was identified for 

improvement. 

Continuation Applicants: 

1. Waiver Applicant: Anchorage 

School District, AK. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 

200.47(b)(1)(iv)(B). 

• Date waiver granted: August 4, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permitted the 

Anchorage School District to continue 

to be eligible to apply to its SEA to 

become a provider of SES to eligible 

students during the 2008–2009 school 

year even though the LEA was 

identified for improvement. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Boston Public 

Schools, MA. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 

200.47(b)(1)(iv)(B). 

• Date waiver granted: August 4, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permitted 

Boston Public Schools to continue to be 

eligible to apply to its SEA to become 

a provider of SES to eligible students 

during the 2008–2009 school year even 

though the LEA was identified for 

improvement. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Chicago Public 

Schools, IL. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 

200.47(b)(1)(iv)(B). 

• Date waiver granted: August 4, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permitted 

Chicago Public Schools to continue to 

be eligible to apply to its SEA to become 

a provider of SES to eligible students 

during the 2008–2009 school year even 

though the LEA was identified for 

improvement. 

4. Waiver Applicant: Hillsborough 

County Public Schools, FL. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 

200.47(b)(1)(iv)(B). 

• Date waiver granted: August 4, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permitted 

Hillsborough County Public Schools to 

continue to be eligible to apply to its 

SEA to become a provider of SES to 

eligible students during the 2008–2009 

school year even though the LEA was 

identified for improvement. 

V. Allowing LEAs to Provide SES to 

Eligible Students in Title I Schools in 

the First Year of School Improvement 

New Applicants: 

1. Waiver Applicant: Alabama 

Department of Education. 

Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, permitted all LEAs in 

Alabama to offer SES, rather than, or in 

addition to, public school choice, to 

eligible students in Title I schools in the 

first year of school improvement. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Arkansas 

Department of Education. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, permitted all LEAs in 

Arkansas to offer SES, rather than 

public school choice, to eligible 

students in Title I schools in the first 

year of school improvement. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Tennessee 

Department of Education. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, permitted all LEAs in 

Tennessee to offer SES, in addition to 

public school choice, to eligible 

students in Title I schools in the first 

year of school improvement. 

4. Waiver Applicant: Utah Department 

of Public Instruction. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, permitted all LEAs in 

Utah to offer SES, rather than public 

school choice, to eligible students in 

Title I schools in the first year of school 

improvement. 

Continuation Applicants: 

1. Waiver Applicant: Alaska 

Department of Education and Early 

Development. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

22912 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, permitted five LEAs— 

Anchorage School District, Fairbanks 

North Star Borough, Juneau Borough, 

Kenai Peninsula Borough, and 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough—to offer 

SES, rather than public school choice, to 

eligible students in Title I schools in the 

first year of school improvement. 

2. Waiver Applicant: North Carolina 

Department of Public Instruction. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, continue to allow all 

LEAs in North Carolina to offer SES, 

rather than public school choice, to 

eligible students in Title I schools in the 

first year of school improvement. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Virginia 

Department of Education. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 

1116(b)(1)(E) and 1116(b)(5)(B) of the 

ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 1, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: For the 2008– 

2009 school year, permitted 14 LEAs— 

Albemarle County, Alexandria City, 

Fairfax County, Fauquier County, 

Fluvanna County, Hampton City, 

Harrisonburg City, Henrico County, 

Loudoun County, Manassas City, 

Martinsville City, Richmond City, 

Spotsylvania County, and WilliamsburgJames City County—to offer SES, rather 

than public school choice, to eligible 

students in Title I schools in the first 

year of school improvement. 

VI. Schoolwide Eligibility Waiver 

1. Waiver Applicant: Berkeley County 

Schools, WV. 

• Provision waived: Section 1114(a) 

of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: June 25, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permits an 

elementary school to implement a Title 

I schoolwide program even though 

fewer than 40 percent of its students are 

from low-income families. 

VII. Title I Within-District Allocation 

Waiver 

1. Waiver Applicant: Henry County 

School District, GA. 

• Provisions waived: Sections 1113(a) 

and (b) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: April 10, 2008. 

• Description of waiver: Allows the 

LEA to skip a newly opening school in 

order to serve an existing Title I school 

with a slightly lower poverty rate for 

one additional year. 

VIII. Transferability Waiver 

1. Waiver Applicant: New York State 

Department of Education. 

• Provision waived: Section 6123(a) 

of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: August 14, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Permits the 

State to transfer certain Title II, Part A 

funds for State-level activities to its 

Title I, Part A administrative reserve. 

IX. Local-Flexibility Demonstration 

Program 

1. Waiver Applicant: Seattle Public 

Schools, WA. 

• Provision waived: Section 

6154(a)(1) of the ESEA. 

• Date waiver granted: September 29, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Waives the 

requirement that precludes the LEA 

from continuing to implement its localflex agreement because it failed to make 

AYP for two consecutive years. 

X. Consolidated Grant Restrictions 

1. Waiver Applicant: American Samoa 

Department of Education, ASDE. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 76.136 

and 76.137. 

• Date waiver granted: September 26, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

ASDE the flexibility to use funds under 

its Fiscal Year 2008 consolidated grant 

for programs under Title V, Part A of the 

ESEA. 

2. Waiver Applicant: Guam Public 

School Systems, GPSS. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 76.136 

and 76.137. 

• Date waiver granted: September 26, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

GPSS the flexibility to use funds under 

its Fiscal Year 2008 consolidated grant 

for programs under Title V, Part A of the 

ESEA. 

3. Waiver Applicant: Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands Public 

School System, CNMI. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 76.136 

and 76.137. 

• Date waiver granted: September 26, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

CNMI the flexibility to use funds under 

its Fiscal Year 2008 consolidated grant 

for programs under Title V, Part A of the 

ESEA. 

4. Waiver Applicant: Virgin Islands 

Department of Education, VIDE. 

• Provision waived: 34 CFR 76.136 

and 76.137. 

• Date waiver granted: November 13, 

2008. 

• Description of waiver: Provided 

VIDE the flexibility to use funds under 

its Fiscal Year 2008 consolidated grant 

for programs under Title V, Part A of the 

ESEA. 

XI. Waivers of the Administrative Cost 

Limitation That Applies to Indian 

Education Funds 

On May 29, 2008, the Department 

granted the following LEAs waivers of 

section 7115(d) of the ESEA, which 

establishes a five percent administrative 

cost limitation on funds awarded under 

the Indian Education formula grant 

program: 

• Kenai Peninsula Borough Schools, 

AK. 

• San Carlos Unified School District, 

AZ. 

• Whiteriver Unified School District, 

AZ. 

• Ventura Unified School District, 

CA. 

• Little Axe Public Schools, OK. 

• Muskogee Public Schools, OK. 

• Oolagah-Talala Public Schools, OK. 

• Sulphur Public Schools, OK. 

• Tulsa Public Schools, OK. 

• Spokane Public Schools (School 

District 81), WA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luz 

Curet, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 

3W344, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 205–3728 or by e-mail: 

luz.curet@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 program contact 

person listed in this section. 

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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC area at (202) 512–1530. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Joseph C. Conaty, Director, Academic 

Improvement and Teacher Quality 

Programs for the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, to perform 

the functions of the Assistant Secretary 

for Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 22913 

1These figures are based on a limited survey of 

8 respondents. The average estimated annual 

burden per respondent (and filing) is 87 hours. 

Using the number of hours spent by each specific 

job title or level, the estimated annual staff cost was 

calculated based on the nationwide average annual 

salary for various levels of engineers, found in the 

Occupational Outlook Handbook (2008–09 Edition) 

[posted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site 

at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm]. The 

estimated average annual staff cost for preparing the 

FERC–714 was $3,603. 

The respondents surveyed had additional costs of 

$514, on average per year. Therefore the total 

estimated average annual cost per respondent is 

$4,117. 

Dated: May 12, 2009. 

Joseph C. Conaty, 

Director, Academic Improvement and 

Teacher Quality Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–11413 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. IC09–714–000] 

Commission Information Collection 

Activities (FERC–714); Comment 

Request; Extension 

May 7, 2009. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed information 

collection and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. No. 104–13), the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC) is soliciting public comment on 

the specific aspects of the information 

collection described below. 

DATES: Comments in consideration of 

the collection of information are due 

July 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: An example of this 

collection of information may be 

obtained from the Commission’s Web 

site (at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp). Comments may be filed 

either electronically or in paper format, 

and should refer to Docket No. IC09– 

714–000. Documents must be prepared 

in an acceptable filing format and in 

compliance with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission submission 

guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/ 

submission-guide.asp. 

Comments may be filed electronically 

via the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at www.ferc.gov. First time 

users will have to establish a user name 

and password (http://www.ferc.gov/ 

docs-filing/eregistration.asp) before 

eFiling. The Commission will send an 

automatic acknowledgement to the 

sender’s e-mail address upon receipt of 

comments through eFiling. 

Commenters filing electronically 

should not make a paper filing. 

Commenters that are not able to file 

electronically must send an original and 

14 copies of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

Users interested in receiving 

automatic notification of activity in this 

docket may do so through eSubscription 

(at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp). In addition, all 

comments and FERC issuances may be 

viewed, printed or downloaded 

remotely through FERC’s Web site using 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and searching on 

Docket Number IC09–714. For user 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support (e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or call tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Brown may be reached by 

telephone at (202) 502–8663, by fax at 

(202) 273–0873, and by e-mail at 

ellen.brown@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC–714 

(Annual Electric Balancing Authority 

Area and Planning Area Report 

(formerly called ‘‘Annual Electric 

Control and Planning Area Report’’), 

OMB No. 1902–0140) is used by the 

Commission to implement Sections 4, 

202, 207, 210, 211–213, 304, 309 and 

311 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) as 

amended (49 Stat. 838: 16 U.S.C. 791 a– 

825r), Section 3(4) of Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 26 

U.S.C. 2602 and sections 1211, 1221, 

1231, 1241 and 1242 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–58) (119 

Stat. 594). The filing requirements are 

found at 18 CFR 141.51. The 

information allows the Commission to 

analyze power system operations, to 

estimate the effect of changes in power 

system operations that result from the 

installation of a new generating unit or 

plant, transmission facilities, energy 

transfers between systems and/or new 

points of interconnections. The analyses 

also serve to correlate rates and charges, 

assess reliability and other operating 

attributes in regulatory proceedings, 

monitor market trends and behaviors, 

and determine the competitive impacts 

of proposed mergers, acquisitions and 

dispositions. 

ACTION: The Commission is requesting a 

three-year extension of the current 

reporting requirements. 

Burden Statement: There has been a 

change in burden due to: (1) An 

informal, limited survey of respondents 

in order to obtain improved estimates of 

both the burden and cost, (2) a change 

in the number of filers resulting from 

the formation of regional transmission 

organizations (and other similar entities) 

encompassing numerous former Control 

Areas (Balancing Authority Areas), and 

(3) the switch to an all-electronic filing 

in 2007 (from a paper and diskette 

filing). Public reporting burden for this 

collection is estimated as follows. 

FERC data collection 

Number of 

respondents 

annually 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden hours 

per response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

(1) (2) (3) (1)x(2)x(3) 

FERC–714 ....................................................................................................... 215 1 1 87 1 18,705 

Note: These figures may not be exact, due to rounding. 

The total estimated annual cost 

burden1 to respondents is $885,155 (215 

respondents × $4,117 per respondent). 

The reporting burden includes the 

total time, effort, or financial resources 

expended to generate, maintain, retain, 

disclose, or provide the information 

including: (1) Reviewing instructions; 

(2) developing, acquiring, installing, and 

utilizing technology and systems for the 

purposes of collecting, validating, 

verifying, processing, maintaining, 

disclosing and providing information; 

(3) adjusting the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; (4) 

training personnel to respond to a 

collection of information; (5) searching 

data sources; (6) completing and 

reviewing the collection of information;