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), 3375-3383 [2010-1048]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3375-3383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1048]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 https://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 https://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.

[[Page 3376]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 lowest-
achieving 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-and-comment 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

[[Page 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 highest-achieving Tier I school that the SEA has 
identified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving 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 lowest-achieving 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       Newly eligible schools an SEA MAY
                                                 in each tier                     identify in each tier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier I................................  Schools that meet the criteria  Title I eligible \2\ elementary schools
                                         in paragraph (a)(1) in the      that are no higher achieving than the
                                         definition of ``persistently    highest-achieving school that meets the
                                         lowest-achieving schools.''     criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) in the
                                         \1\                             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  Title I eligible secondary schools that
                                         in paragraph (a)(2) in the      are (1) no higher achieving than the
                                         definition of ``persistently    highest-achieving school that meets the
                                         lowest-achieving schools.''     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:

[[Page 3378]]

 
                                                                            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              Title I eligible schools that do not
                                         improvement, corrective         meet the requirements to be in Tier I
                                         action, or restructuring that   or Tier II and that are:
                                         are not in Tier I.\3\
                                                                            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 lowest-
achieving 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

[[Page 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 non-Federal 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 non-Federal 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

[[Page 3380]]

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 lowest-achieving 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 lowest-achieving 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 3382]]

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 lowest-achieving 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 lowest-achieving 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.

[[Page 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*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of      Hours/
                  SIG activity                       SEAs       activity      Hours      Cost/hour       Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete SEA application (including requests              52          100        5,200          $30     $156,000
 for waivers)..................................
Review and post LEA applications...............           52          800       41,600           30    1,248,000
Collect and report school-level data to the               52           80        4,160           30      124,800
 Department **.................................
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of      Hours/
                  SIG activity                       LEAs       activity      Hours      Cost/hour       Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete LEA application (including requests           3,050           60      183,000          $25   $4,575,000
 for waivers if the SEA does not so request)...
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: https://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