62008 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

period should be extended. Therefore, 

the closing date for comments is 

changed to February 1, 2005, which will 

provide the NCUTCD, the AASHTO, 

and others interested in commenting 

additional time to discuss, evaluate, and 

submit responses to the docket.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or 

submit electronically at http://

dmses.dot.gov/submit or fax comments 

to (202) 493–2251. All comments should 

include the docket number that appears 

in the heading of this document. 

Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov

(follow the on-line instructions for 

submitted comments). All comments 

received will be available for 

examination and copying at the above 

address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Those desiring notification of 

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or may 

print the acknowledgment page that 

appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). Persons 

making comments may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 

19477–78) or may visit http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Peter J. Hatzi, Office of Safety Design 

(HSA–10), (202) 366–8036, or Raymond 

Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel 

(202) 366–0791, Federal Highway 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

Interested parties may submit or 

retrieve comments online through the 

Document Management System (DMS) 

at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.

Acceptable formats include: MS Word 

(versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac 

(versions 6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), 

American Standard Code Information 

Interchange (ASCII) (TXT), Portable 

Document Format (PDF), and 

WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS 

is available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. Electronic submission, 

retrieval help and guidelines are 

available under the help section of the 

website. 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded using a computer, 

modem and suitable communications 

software from the Government Printing 

Office’s Electronic Bulletin Board 

Service at (202) 512–1661. Internet users 

may reach the Office of the Federal 

Register’s home page at http://

www.archives.gov and the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at: http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background 

The FHWA has conducted extensive 

research on the minimum levels of sign 

retroreflectivity. This research led to the 

development of proposed minimum 

maintained levels of traffic sign 

retroreflectivity, and a complement of 

maintenance methods for implementing 

the levels. On July 30, 2004, the FHWA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed amendments (NPA) 

proposing changes to the MUTCD to 

include methods to maintain traffic sign 

retroreflectivity. The proposed 

maintenance methods would establish a 

basis for improving nighttime visibility 

of traffic signs to promote safety, 

enhance traffic operations, and facilitate 

comfort and convenience for all drivers. 

The existing MUTCD requires that 

traffic signs be illuminated or 

retroreflective. However, until recently, 

little information was available about 

the levels of retroreflectivity necessary 

to meet the needs of drivers and thereby 

define the useful life of signs. The NPA 

for maintaining traffic sign 

retroreflectivity is proposing guidance 

for evaluating and maintaining traffic 

sign retroreflectivity to address the 

needs of drivers. The methods proposed 

would allow agencies options for 

evaluating and managing their signs. 

The NPA proposes a seven-year 

compliance period for regulatory, 

warning, and post mounted guide signs 

and a 10-year compliance period for 

overhead guide signs and street name 

signs. 

The original comment period for the 

NPA closes on October 28, 2004. The 

NCUTCD and the AASHTO have 

expressed concern that this closing date 

does not provide sufficient time to 

review and discuss the proposed 

changes; and then, develop and submit 

complete responses to the docket. To 

allow time for these organizations and 

others to submit comprehensive 

comments, the closing date is changed 

from October 28, 2004, to February 1, 

2005.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 

109(d), 114(a), 135, 217, 307, 315, and 402(a); 

sec. 406(a), Pub. L. 102–388, 106 Stat. 1520, 

1564, 23 CFR 1.32 and 49 CFR 1.48(b).)

Issued on: October 18, 2004. 

Mary E. Peters, 

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23674 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 225 

RIN 1855–AA02 

Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities Program

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Secretary issues these 

proposed regulations to administer the 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities program and its predecessor, 

the Charter School Facilities Financing 

Demonstration Grant program. Under 

this program, the Department provides 

competitive grants to entities that are 

non-profit or public or are consortia of 

these entities to demonstrate innovative 

credit enhancement strategies to assist 

charter schools in acquiring, 

constructing, and renovating facilities 

through loans, bonds, other debt 

instruments, or leases.

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before November 22, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

these proposed regulations to Jim 

Houser, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–6140. If you 

prefer to send comments through the 

Internet, use the following address: 

comments@ed.gov. You must include 

the term ‘‘credit enhancement’’ in the 

subject line of your electronic message. 

If you want to comment on the 

information collection requirements, 

you must send your comments to the 

Office of Management and Budget at the 

address listed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section of this preamble. 

You may also send a copy of these 

comments to the Department 

representative named in this section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valarie Perkins or Jim Houser, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202–

6140. Telephone: (202) 260–1924 or via 

Internet, at: charter.facilities@ed.gov. If 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62009

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), you may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding these proposed regulations. 

To ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the final 

regulations, we urge you to identify 

clearly the specific section or sections of 

the proposed regulations that each of 

your comments addresses and to arrange 

your comments in the same order as the 

proposed regulations. 

We also 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 proposed regulations. 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 program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these proposed regulations in 

room 4W258, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC, 20202–6140, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday of each week except Federal 

holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid, such as a reader or 

print magnifier, to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed regulations. If 

you want to schedule an appointment 

for this type of aid, please contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Background 

These proposed regulations would 

apply to both (a) the Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities program, which is authorized 

under title V, part B, subpart 2 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (the Act), as amended by the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. 

L. 107–110, enacted January 8, 2002) 

and (b) its predecessor, the Charter 

School Facilities Financing 

Demonstration Grant program, as 

authorized by title X, part C, subpart 2 

of the Act as part of the Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2001 as 

enacted by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2001. The purpose 

of this program is to assist charter 

schools in meeting their facilities needs. 

Under this program, funds are provided 

on a competitive basis to public and 

nonprofit entities, and consortia of these 

entities, to leverage other funds and 

help charter schools acquire school 

facilities through such means as 

purchase, lease, and donation. Grantees 

may also use grants to leverage other 

funds to help charter schools construct 

and renovate school facilities. 

To help leverage funds for charter 

school facilities, grant recipients may, 

among other things: Guarantee and 

insure debt, including bonds, to finance 

charter school facilities; guarantee and 

insure leases for personal and real 

property; facilitate a charter school’s 

facilities financing by identifying 

potential lending sources, encouraging 

private lending, and carrying out other, 

similar activities; and establish 

temporary charter school facilities that 

new charter schools may use until they 

can acquire a facility on their own.

Sections in these proposed 

regulations that govern the management 

of grants would apply to grants under 

both the Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities program and its 

predecessor, the Charter School 

Facilities Financing Demonstration 

Grant program. These two programs are 

virtually identical and grants made 

under them will operate for several 

years. Sections related to grantee 

selection would apply only to grant 

competitions conducted after fiscal year 

(FY) 2004. 

Proposed Regulations 

The primary purpose of this 

regulation is to establish selection 

criteria for this complex program’s 

discretionary grant competitions after 

FY 2004. Since we seek to award grants 

to high-quality applicants with highquality plans to use their grant funds, 

these criteria essentially include 

assessments on the quality of the 

applicant and the quality of the 

applicant’s plan. The criteria also assess 

how applicants propose to leverage 

private or public sector funding and 

increase the number and variety of 

charter schools assisted in meeting their 

facilities needs. The proposed selection 

criteria are similar to those we have 

used in the two previous competitions 

for this program. As noted above, this 

proposed regulation also includes a few 

provisions that govern the ongoing 

management of the grants already 

awarded in preceding fiscal years. 

Executive Order 12866 

1. Potential Costs and Benefits 

Under Executive Order 12866, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

the proposed regulations are those 

resulting from statutory requirements 

and those we have determined to be 

necessary for administering this 

program effectively and efficiently. 

Elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section we identify and 

explain burdens specifically associated 

with information collection 

requirements. See the heading 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this regulatory action, 

we have determined that the benefits 

would justify the costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Summary of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Secretary believes that these 

regulations are necessary to clarify 

complex statutory provisions. As noted 

elsewhere, these proposed regulations 

add clarity where the statute is 

ambiguous or reorganize statutory 

material to facilitate a better 

understanding of the statute’s 

requirements. Nearly all of the benefits 

and costs of these proposed regulations 

stem from the underlying legislation 

and not the regulations. The costs 

associated with these proposed 

regulations are not only minimal but are 

also justified in terms of the benefits 

that successful applicants for these 

discretionary grants will receive. For 

example, the statute requires an 

application and the types of information 

that would be collected through the 

proposed selection criteria should be 

readily available to applicants under 

this program. 

2. Clarity of the Regulations 

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 proposed regulations 

62010 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

Æ Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

Æ Do the proposed regulations 

contain technical terms or other 

wording that interferes with their 

clarity?

Æ Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

Æ Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol 

‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for 

example, § 225.1 What is the Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program?) 

Æ Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

Æ What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

Send any comments that concern how 

the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand to the person listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of the preamble. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed regulations would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that would be 

tangentially affected by these proposed 

regulations are small grantees and, 

tangentially, small charter schools that 

ultimately benefit from services 

provided by grantees. In addition, we do 

not believe that the regulations would 

have a significant economic impact on 

the limited number of small grantees 

and small charter schools affected 

because the proposed regulations would 

not impose excessive regulatory burdens 

on those entities or require unnecessary 

Federal supervision. 

The proposed regulations would 

benefit both small and large entities in 

that they clarify confusing and complex 

statutory requirements. Also, since the 

statute requires Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities applicants to 

apply to the Department if they wish to 

receive discretionary funds, it would be 

difficult for the Department to award 

funds without the application 

information specified in the proposed 

regulations. The proposed regulations 

will ensure that applicants do not 

provide significant amounts of 

information that is already otherwise 

available to the Department. 

The proposed regulations would 

impose minimal paperwork burden 

requirements for all applicants and 

minimal requirements with which grant 

recipients must comply. However, the 

Secretary specifically invites comments 

on the effects of the proposed 

regulations on small entities, and on 

whether there may be further 

opportunities to reduce any potential 

adverse impact or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

regulations without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Sections 225.11 and 225.12 contain 

information collection requirements. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the 

Department of Education submitted a 

copy of this section to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for its 

review. 

Collection of Information: Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Grant Program 

The Department will use the 

information collected through the 

selection criteria and competitive 

priority to determine whether to fund 

applicants. Since the statute requires 

applicants to apply for funds, the 

Department would not be able to award 

these funds without the application to 

collect the required information. 

We estimate the annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

of information to average 80 hours for 

each respondent for 30 applicants, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Thus, we estimate the total annual 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection to be 2400 hours. 

If you want to comment on the 

information collection requirements, 

please send your comments to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, room 10235, New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; 

Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 

Department of Education. You may also 

send a copy of these comments to the 

Department representative named in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

We consider your comments on this 

proposed collection of information in—

Æ Deciding whether the proposed 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

Æ Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

Æ Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

Æ Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses.

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in these proposed regulations 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure 

that OMB gives your comments full 

consideration, it is important that OMB 

receives the comments within 30 days 

of publication. This does not affect the 

deadline for your comments to us on the 

proposed regulations. 

The proposed regulations would 

benefit both small and large entities in 

that they clarify confusing and complex 

statutory requirements. However, the 

Secretary specifically invites comments 

on the effects of the proposed 

regulations on small entities, and on 

whether there may be further 

opportunities to reduce any potential 

adverse impact or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

regulations without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities program. 

Commenters are requested to describe 

the nature of any effect and provide 

empirical data and other factual support 

for their views to the extent possible. 

These comments will be placed in the 

public comment file and considered in 

the preparation of the final regulations. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62011

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents 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. 

You may also view this document in 

PDF at the following site: http://

www.ed.gov/programs/charterfacilities/

index.html.

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.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.354A Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities Program.)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 225 

Charter Schools, Credit Enhancement, 

Education, Educational facilities, 

Elementary and secondary education, 

Grant programs—education, Report and 

recordkeeping requirements, Schools.

Dated: October 19, 2004. 

Nina Shokraii Rees, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary proposes to 

amend title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding a new part 225 to 

read as follows:

PART 225—CREDIT ENHANCEMENT 

FOR CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITIES 

PROGRAM

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

225.1 What is the Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities Program? 

225.2 Who is eligible to receive a grant? 

225.3 What regulations apply to the Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program? 

225.4 What definitions apply to the Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program?

Subpart B—How Does the Secretary Award 

a Grant? 

225.10 How does the Secretary evaluate an 

application? 

225.11 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use in evaluating an 

application for a Credit Enhancement for 

Charter Schools Facilities grant? 

225.12 What funding priority may the 

Secretary use in making a grant award?

Subpart C—What Conditions Must Be Met 

by a Grantee? 

225.20 When may a grantee draw down 

funds? 

225.21 What are some examples of 

impermissible uses of reserve account 

funds?

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223, unless 

otherwise noted.

Subpart A—General

§ 225.1 What is the Credit Enhancement 

for Charter School Facilities Program? 

(a) The Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities Program 

provides grants to eligible entities to 

assist charter schools in obtaining 

facilities. 

(b) Grantees use these grants to do the 

following: 

(1) Assist charter schools in obtaining 

loans, bonds, and other debt 

instruments for the purpose of obtaining 

facilities. 

(2) Assist charter schools in obtaining 

leases of facilities. 

(c) Grantees may demonstrate 

innovative credit enhancement 

initiatives while meeting the program 

purposes under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(d) For the purposes of these 

regulations, the Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities Program 

includes grants made under the Charter 

School Facilities Financing 

Demonstration Grant Program.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223)

§ 225.2 Who is eligible to receive a grant? 

The following are eligible to receive a 

grant under this part: 

(a) A public entity, such as a State or 

local governmental entity; 

(b) A private nonprofit entity; or 

(c) A consortium of entities described 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223a; 7223i(2))

§ 225.3 What regulations apply to the 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program? 

The following regulations apply to the 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program: 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) as 

follows: 

(1) 34 CFR part 74 (Administration of 

Grants and Agreements with Institutions 

of Higher Education, Hospitals, and 

other Non-Profit Organizations). 

(2) 34 CFR part 75 (Direct Grant 

Programs). 

(3) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that 

Apply to Department Regulations). 

(4) 34 CFR part 79 (Intergovernmental 

Review of Department of Education 

Programs and Activities). 

(5) 34 CFR part 80 (Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments).

(6) 34 CFR part 81 (General 

Educational Provisions Act—

Enforcement). 

(7) 34 CFR part 82 (New Restrictions 

on Lobbying). 

(8) 34 CFR part 84 (Governmentwide 

Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace 

(Grants)). 

(9) 34 CFR part 85 (Governmentwide 

Debarment and Suspension 

(Nonprocurement)). 

(b) The regulations in this part 225.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3; 1232)

§ 225.4 What definitions apply to the 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities Program? 

(a) Definitions in the Act. The 

following term used in this part is 

defined in section 5210 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended by the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Charter 

school. 

(b) Definitions in EDGAR. The 

following terms used in this part are 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1: Acquisition, 

Applicant, Application, Award, 

Department, EDGAR, Facilities, Grant, 

Grantee, Nonprofit, Private, Project, 

Public, and Secretary.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221(i)(1); 7223d)

Subpart B—How Does the Secretary 

Award a Grant?

§ 225.10 How does the Secretary evaluate 

an application? 

(a) The Secretary evaluates an 

application on the basis of the criteria 

in § 225.11. 

(b) The Secretary awards up to 100 

points for these criteria. 

(c) The maximum possible score for 

each criterion is indicated in 

parentheses.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223; 1232)

§ 225.11 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use in evaluating an application 

for a Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities grant? 

The Secretary uses the following 

criteria to evaluate an application for a 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities grant: 

(a) Quality of project design and 

significance. (35 points) In determining 

the quality of project design and 

significance, the Secretary considers—

(1) The extent to which the grant 

proposal would provide financing to 

62012 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

charter schools at better rates and terms 

than they can receive absent assistance 

through the program; 

(2) The extent to which the project 

goals, objectives, and timeline are 

clearly specified, measurable, and 

appropriate for the purpose of the 

program; 

(3) The extent to which the project 

implementation plan and activities, 

including the partnerships established, 

are likely to achieve measurable 

objectives that further the purposes of 

the program; 

(4) The extent to which the project is 

likely to produce results that are 

replicable; 

(5) The extent to which the project 

will use appropriate criteria for 

selecting charter schools for assistance 

and for determining the type and 

amount of assistance to be given; 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

activities will leverage the private or 

public sector funding and increase the 

number and variety of charter schools 

assisted in meeting their facilities needs 

absent the program;

(7) The extent to which the project 

will serve charter schools in States with 

strong charter laws, consistent with the 

criteria for such laws in section 

5202(e)(3) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965; and 

(8) The extent to which the requested 

grant amount and the project costs are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and potential significance of the 

project. 

(b) Quality of project services. (15 

points) In determining the quality of the 

project services, the Secretary 

considers—

(1) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the project reflect the 

identified needs of the charter schools 

to be served; 

(2) The extent to which charter 

schools and chartering agencies were 

involved in the design of, and 

demonstrate support for, the project; 

(3) The extent to which the technical 

assistance and other services to be 

provided by the proposed grant project 

involve the use of cost-effective 

strategies for increasing charter schools’

access to facilities financing, including 

the reasonableness of fees and lending 

terms; and 

(4) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed grant 

project are focused on assisting charter 

schools with a likelihood of success and 

the greatest demonstrated need for 

assistance under the program. 

(c) Capacity. (35 points) In 

determining an applicant’s business and 

organizational capacity to carry out the 

project, the Secretary considers—

(1) The amount and quality of 

experience of the applicant in carrying 

out the activities it proposes to 

undertake in its application, such as 

enhancing the credit on debt issuances, 

guaranteeing leases, and facilitating 

financing; 

(2) The applicant’s financial stability; 

(3) The ability of the applicant to 

protect against unwarranted risk in its 

loan underwriting, portfolio monitoring, 

and financial management; 

(4) The applicant’s expertise in 

education to evaluate the likelihood of 

success of a charter school; 

(5) The ability of the applicant to 

prevent conflicts of interest, including 

conflicts of interest by employees and 

members of the board of directors in a 

decision-making role; 

(6) If the applicant has co-applicants 

(consortium members), partners or other 

grant project participants, the specific 

resources to be contributed by each coapplicant (consortium member), partner, 

or other grant project participant to the 

implementation and success of the grant 

project; 

(7) For State governmental entities, 

the extent to which steps have been or 

will be taken to ensure charter schools 

within the State receive the funding 

needed to obtain adequate facilities; and 

(8) For previous grantees under the 

charter school facilities programs, their 

performance in implementing these 

grants. 

(d) Quality of project personnel. (15 

points) In determining the quality of 

project personnel, the Secretary 

considers—

(1) The qualifications of project 

personnel, including relevant training 

and experience, of the project manager 

and other members of the project team, 

including consultants or subcontractors; 

and 

(2) The staffing plan for the grant 

project.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223; 1232)

§ 225.12 What funding priority may the 

Secretary use in making a grant award? 

(a) The Secretary may award up to 15 

additional points under a competitive 

priority regarding the capacity of charter 

schools to offer public school choice in 

those communities with the greatest 

need for this choice based on—

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

would target services to geographic 

areas in which a large proportion or 

number of public schools have been 

identified for improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring under Title I of 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended by 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; 

(2) The extent to which the applicant 

would target services to geographic 

areas in which a large proportion of 

students perform below proficient on 

State academic assessments; and 

(3) The extent to which the applicant 

would target services to communities 

with large proportions of students from 

low-income families. 

(b) The Secretary may elect to—

(1) Use this competitive priority only 

in certain years; and 

(2) Consider the points awarded 

under this priority only for proposals 

that exhibit sufficient quality to warrant 

funding under the selection criteria in 

§ 225.11.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223; 1232)

Subpart C—What Conditions Must Be 

Met by a Grantee?

§ 225.20 When may a grantee draw down 

funds? 

(a) A grantee may draw down funds 

after it has signed a performance 

agreement acceptable to the Department 

of Education and the grantee. 

(b) A grantee may draw down and 

spend a limited amount of funds prior 

to reaching an acceptable performance 

agreement provided that the grantee 

requests to draw down and spend a 

specific amount of funds and the 

Department of Education approves the 

request in writing.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223d)

§ 225.21 What are some examples of 

impermissible uses of reserve account 

funds? 

(a) Grantees must not use reserve 

account funds to—

(1) Directly pay for a charter school’s 

construction, renovation, repair, or 

acquisition; or 

(2) Provide a down payment on 

facilities in order to secure loans for 

charter schools. A grantee may, 

however, use funds to guarantee a loan 

for the portion of the loan that would 

otherwise have to be funded with a 

down payment. 

(b) In the event of a default of 

payment by a charter school whose loan 

or lease is guaranteed by reserve 

account funds, a grantee may use these 

funds to cover defaulted payments that 

are referenced under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7223d)

[FR Doc. 04–23746 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P