68812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

heading of this document. Received 

comments may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 

will be posted to the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

IV. Electronic Access 

Persons with access to the Internet 

may obtain the document at either 

http://www.fda.gov/Regulatory

Information/Guidances/default.htm or 

http://www.regulations.gov. Always 

access an FDA guidance document by 

using FDA’s Web site listed in the 

previous sentence to find the most 

current version of the guidance. 

Dated: November 13, 2014. 

Leslie Kux, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27290 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OII–0019; CFDA 

Number: 84.282A] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Charter Schools Program Grants to 

State Educational Agencies 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Charter Schools 

Program (CSP) Grants to State 

educational agencies (SEAs). The 

Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one 

or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2015 and later years. We take this 

action in order to support the 

development of high-quality charter 

schools throughout the Nation by 

strengthening several components of 

this program, including grantee 

accountability; accountability and 

oversight for authorized public 

chartering agencies; and support to 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before January 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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 ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to Stefan 

Huh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W230, 

Washington, DC 20202–5970. Privacy 

Note: The Department’s policy is to 

make all comments received from 

members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Bettis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W242, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6533 or by 

email: charter.schools@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement proposes 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for CSP Grants to 

SEAs. The Assistant Deputy Secretary 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in FY 2015 and 

later years. We take this action in order 

to support the development of highquality charter schools throughout the 

Nation by strengthening several 

components of the program, including 

grantee accountability, accountability 

and oversight for authorized public 

chartering agencies, and support to 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: As noted above, 

the Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes 

this regulatory action to achieve three 

main goals. 

The first goal is greater accountability 

for SEAs’ use of CSP funds; the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

increase the likelihood that CSP funds 

are directed toward the creation of highquality charter schools. Specifically, in 

order to address the proposed selection 

criteria, the SEA would be asked to 

explain how charter schools fit into the 

State’s broader education reform 

strategy. In addition, these proposed 

selection criteria would clarify how the 

SEA should manage and report on 

project performance. Proposed selection 

criteria (a) (‘‘State-Level Strategy’’) and 

(b) (‘‘Policy Context for Charter 

Schools’’) would address the SEA’s 

strategy for incorporating charter 

schools into the State’s broader effort to 

improve student outcomes and how the 

policy context supports this goal. 

Proposed selection criterion (c) (‘‘Past 

Performance’’) would assess the 

performance of charter schools in the 

applicant’s State over the past five 

years. Proposed selection criterion (e) 

(‘‘Vision for Growth and 

Accountability’’) would address the 

SEA’s vision for measuring and 

reporting on charter school 

performance, cultivating the growth of 

new high-quality charter schools, and 

promoting rigorous accountability for 

charter school performance. Proposed 

selection criterion (f) (‘‘Dissemination of 

Information and Best Practices’’) would 

help ensure that the SEA has a plan for 

disseminating information about charter 

schools and best practices in successful 

charter schools. Proposed selection 

criterion (h) (‘‘Management Plan and 

Theory of Action’’) and the proposed 

logic model application requirement 

would require the SEA to provide a 

logic model that describes how its CSP 

funds would be linked to the 

achievement of specific measurable 

outcomes and performance measures 

that allow the SEA to track and evaluate 

its project’s performance. Proposed 

selection criterion (i) (‘‘Project Design’’) 

would solicit information on the 

mechanics of the charter school 

subgrant program the SEA plans to 

implement with CSP funds. In addition 

to the selection criteria discussed above, 

proposed priority 4 (‘‘SEAs That Have 

Never Received A CSP Grant’’) would 

promote the first goal of greater 

accountability by supporting the growth 

of high-quality charter school sectors in 

States that have not received CSP 

funding in the past, thereby creating 

new systems of supports and increasing 

the funding available for high-quality 

charter schools in new regions. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68813 

The second goal of this proposed 

regulatory action is to strengthen public 

accountability and oversight for 

authorized public chartering agencies. 

The proposed regulations would help 

ensure that SEAs implement program 

requirements, as well as State policies 

and supports, in a manner that enables 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

be keenly focused on school quality 

through rigorous and transparent charter 

school authorization processes. 

Furthermore, it would increase the 

likelihood that CSP funds are directed 

toward the creation of high-quality 

charter schools and help improve the 

quality of all charter schools throughout 

the State. 

The following proposed priorities and 

selection criteria support this second 

goal. Proposed priorities 1 (‘‘Periodic 

Review and Evaluation’’) and 2 

(‘‘Charter School Oversight’’) would 

clarify existing statutory priorities in 

these areas. Proposed priority 3 (‘‘HighQuality Authorizing and Monitoring 

Processes’’) would encourage authorized 

public chartering agencies in States 

applying for this grant to adopt key 

authorizing and monitoring processes 

that are identified as best practices in 

the field. Proposed selection criterion 

(g) (‘‘Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies’’) would request 

that SEAs explain, in detail, their State’s 

plan for holding authorized public 

chartering agencies accountable for the 

quality of the charter schools they 

approve. 

The third goal of this proposed 

regulatory action is to encourage a 

stronger focus on supporting and 

improving academic outcomes for 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

While this goal has been a theme in 

previous competitions under this 

program, the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would raise its profile. The 

continued growth of charter schools, 

and ongoing questions about 

educationally disadvantaged students’ 

access to and performance in charter 

schools, compels the Assistant Deputy 

Secretary to encourage a continued 

focus on students at the greatest risk of 

academic failure. A critical component 

of serving all students, including 

educationally disadvantaged students, 

is consideration of student body 

diversity, including racial, ethnic, and 

socioeconomic diversity. This proposed 

regulatory action encourages broad 

consideration of student body 

composition, consistent with applicable 

law, as charter schools are authorized 

and funded and as best practices are 

disseminated. 

The following proposed priorities and 

selection criteria support this third goal. 

Proposed selection criterion (d) 

(‘‘Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students’’) 

would allow SEAs to highlight specific 

actions they would take to support 

educationally disadvantaged students 

through charter schools, while proposed 

selection criteria (f) (‘‘Dissemination of 

Best Practices’’) and (g) (‘‘Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering 

Agencies’’) would encourage the 

meaningful incorporation of diversity 

into charter school models and charter 

school practices. 

In addition to the three goals outlined 

above, the Assistant Deputy Secretary 

proposes these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria in 

order to clarify certain statutory 

requirements and to streamline the CSP 

application process, thereby decreasing 

the burden on the applicant. 

Costs and Benefits 

The Department believes that the 

benefits of this regulatory action 

outweigh any associated costs, which 

we believe would be minimal. This 

action would not impose cost-bearing 

requirements on participating SEAs 

apart from those related to preparing an 

application for a CSP grant and would 

strengthen accountability for the use of 

Federal funds by helping to ensure that 

the Department awards CSP grants to 

SEAs that are most capable of 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools available to our Nation’s 

students. Please refer to the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis in this notice for a 

more detailed discussion of costs and 

benefits. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criteria that each 

comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could 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 this notice in 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 4W259 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. 

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. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the CSP is to increase national 

understanding of the charter school 

model by: 

(1) Providing financial assistance for 

the planning, program design, and 

initial implementation of charter 

schools; 

(2) Evaluating the effects of charter 

schools, including the effects on 

students, student achievement, student 

growth, staff, and parents; 

(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools available to 

students across the Nation; and 

(4) Encouraging the States to provide 

support to charter schools for facilities 

financing in an amount more nearly 

commensurate to the amount the States 

have typically provided for traditional 

public schools. 

The purpose of the CSP Grants to 

SEAs is to enable SEAs to provide 

financial assistance, through subgrants 

to eligible applicants, for the planning, 

program design, and initial 

implementation of charter schools and 

for the dissemination of information 

about successful charter schools, 

including practices that existing charter 

schools have demonstrated are 

successful. 

Program Authority: Title V, Part B, 

Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) 

(20 U.S.C. 7221–7221j); and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76). 

Proposed Priorities: This notice 

contains four proposed priorities. 

Proposed Priority 1—Periodic Review 

and Evaluation 

Background: Under the CSP 

authorizing statute, the Department 

must give priority to applications from 

SEAs in States that provide for periodic 

review and evaluation by the authorized 

public chartering agency of each charter 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Under section 5202(e)(1) of the ESEA, an SEA 

must meet this criterion and one or more of the 

three criteria described in section 5202(e)(3) in 

order to receive priority (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)). 

2The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–117); the Department of Defense and 

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(Pub. L. 112–10); the Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112–36); the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. 

L. 113–6); and the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2014 (Pub.L. 113–76). 

3The groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA include public 

elementary and secondary school students, 

economically disadvantaged students, students 

from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 

disabilities, and students with limited English 

proficiency. 

4This priority would not preclude an authorized 

public chartering agency from revoking or electing 

not to renew a school’s charter based on other nonacademic factors, such as financial mismanagement. 

5 In years in which the appropriations act requires 

the elements of this proposed priority, it will be a 

requirement. 

6See e.g., National Association of Charter School 

Authorizers’ Index of Essential Practices 2012. 

Available at: www.pageturnpro.com/NationalAssociation-of-Charter-School-Authorizers/50450- 

The-Index-of-Essential-Practices-2012/index.html#/

1. 

school.1 These reviews must be 

conducted at least once every five years 

for each charter school (unless required 

more frequently by State law) to 

determine whether the charter school is 

meeting the terms of the school’s charter 

and meeting or exceeding the student 

academic achievement requirements 

and goals for charter schools as set forth 

under State law or the school’s charter 

(20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(2)). While this 

periodic review and evaluation by an 

authorized public chartering agency 

would not necessarily have to occur 

only as part of the charter renewal 

process, in order to meet the priority, 

the periodic review and evaluation 

would have to provide an opportunity 

for the authorized public chartering 

agency to impose meaningful 

consequences on a charter school that is 

not meeting the terms of its charter or 

is not meeting or exceeding applicable 

student academic achievement 

requirements and goals. 

The language in this proposed priority 

is identical to the language in the 

statute, except that this proposed 

priority would clarify that periodic 

review and evaluation should provide 

an opportunity for the authorized public 

chartering agency to take appropriate 

action or impose meaningful 

consequences on the charter school, if 

necessary. The proposed priority would 

also clarify that the student academic 

achievement requirements and goals 

may be established in a State regulation 

or State policy that meets or exceeds 

such requirements in the State law or 

regulation. 

Proposed Priority: To meet this 

priority, the applicant must demonstrate 

that the State provides for periodic 

review and evaluation by the authorized 

public chartering agency of each charter 

school at least once every five years, 

unless required more frequently by State 

law, to determine whether the charter 

school is meeting the terms of the 

school’s charter and meeting or 

exceeding the student academic 

achievement requirements and goals for 

charter schools as set forth in the 

school’s charter or under State law, a 

State regulation, or a State policy, 

provided that the student academic 

achievement requirements and goals for 

charter schools established by that 

policy meet or exceed those set forth 

under applicable State law or State 

regulation. Periodic review and 

evaluation provides an opportunity for 

the authorized public chartering agency 

to take appropriate action or impose 

meaningful consequences on the charter 

school, if necessary. 

Proposed Priority 2—Charter School 

Oversight 

Background: Since FY 2010, each 

appropriations act applicable to the 

Department has required SEAs receiving 

CSP grants to provide two assurances.2

First, each SEA applicant must provide 

an assurance that State law, regulations, 

or other policies require that each 

authorized charter school in the State (a) 

operate under a legally binding charter 

or performance contract between itself 

and the school’s authorized public 

chartering agency that describes the 

rights and responsibilities of the school 

and the public chartering agency; (b) 

conduct annual, timely, and 

independent audits of the school’s 

financial statements that are filed with 

the school’s authorized public 

chartering agency; and (c) demonstrate 

improved student academic 

achievement. Second, each SEA 

applicant must provide an assurance 

that authorized public chartering 

agencies in the State use increases in 

student academic achievement for all 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA 3 as the 

most important factor when determining 

whether to renew or revoke a school’s 

charter.4

In the past, these two requirements 

were incorporated into an assurance 

document that SEA grantees signed to 

affirm compliance. These requirements 

are important characteristics of highquality authorizing practices and are 

essential to holding charter schools 

accountable. Incorporating the language 

for these requirements into a priority 

would strengthen the Department’s 

ability to hold SEAs accountable for 

meeting these requirements at the time 

the award is made and throughout the 

grant period.5

Proposed Priority: To meet this 

priority, an application must 

demonstrate that State law, regulations, 

or other policies in the State where the 

applicant is located require the 

following: 

(a) That each charter school in the 

State— 

(1) Operates under a legally binding 

charter or performance contract between 

itself and the school’s authorized public 

chartering agency that describes the 

rights and responsibilities of the school 

and the public chartering agency; 

(2) Conducts annual, timely, and 

independent audits of the school’s 

financial statements that are filed with 

the school’s authorized public 

chartering agency; and 

(3) Demonstrates improved student 

academic achievement; and 

(b) That all authorized public 

chartering agencies in the State use 

increases in student academic 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)) as the 

most important factor when determining 

whether to renew or revoke a school’s 

charter. 

Proposed Priority 3—High-Quality 

Authorizing and Monitoring Processes 

Background: The quality of a charter 

school is influenced by the quality of 

the charter approval process and the 

quality of its authorized public 

chartering agency’s oversight and 

monitoring processes. This proposed 

priority would promote the use of 

charter approval, monitoring, and 

oversight practices that have been 

identified by stakeholders as likely to 

contribute to the creation and operation 

of high-quality charter schools.6

High-quality authorizing processes 

can influence the quality of charter 

schools through the authorization 

process and beyond. Expedited charter 

approval for operators with exemplary 

track records helps increase the number 

of high-quality charter schools, while a 

multi-tiered approval process can keep 

potentially poor-performing charter 

schools from ever operating. Clear 

charter approval processes and 

frameworks for evaluating charter 

schools and authorized public 

chartering agencies would strengthen 

accountability and improve 

transparency. 

Strong performance monitoring 

mechanisms can increase the speed of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68815 

7The Department is requesting this information 

in response to specific recommendations made by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its 

February 2013 report entitled, ‘‘Charter Schools: 

Guidance Needed for Military Base Schools on 

Startup and Operational Issues’’ (GAO–13–67). In 

its response to the report, the Department agreed, 

among other things, to require SEAs (and other 

eligible applicants under the CSP), as appropriate, 

(a) to describe any enrollment preferences that 

charter schools are required or permitted to employ 

under State law; and (b) to require applicants for 

CSP subgrants to include descriptions of their 

recruitment and admissions policies and practices, 

including any enrollment preferences they plan to 

employ, in their subgrant applications. 

decision-making by authorized public 

chartering agencies, allowing highquality charter schools to open, expand, 

and disseminate information about best 

practices. These systems can also 

accelerate the identification of charter 

schools that are performing poorly or 

demonstrate significant operational 

risks and, when necessary, expedite 

their closure. 

Proposed Priority: To meet this 

priority, an applicant must demonstrate 

that all authorized public chartering 

agencies in the State operate using one 

or more of the following: 

(a) Frameworks and processes to 

evaluate the performance of charter 

schools on a regular basis that include— 

(1) Rigorous academic and operational 

performance expectations (including 

performance expectations related to 

financial management and equitable 

treatment of all students and 

applicants); 

(2) School-specific performance 

objectives aligned to those expectations; 

(3) Clear criteria for renewing the 

charter of a school based on an objective 

body of evidence, including the 

performance objectives outlined in the 

charter contract, demonstration of 

organizational and fiscal viability, and 

demonstration of fidelity to the terms of 

the charter contract and applicable law; 

(4) Clear criteria for revoking the 

charter of a school if there is violation 

of law or public trust regarding student 

safety or public funds, or evidence of 

poor student academic achievement; 

and 

(5) Annual reporting by authorized 

public chartering agencies to each of 

their authorized charter schools that 

summarizes the individual school’s 

performance and compliance, based on 

this framework, and identifies any areas 

needing improvement. 

(b) Standardized systems that measure 

and benchmark the performance of the 

authorized public chartering agency, 

including the performance of its 

portfolio of charter schools, and provide 

for the annual dissemination of 

information on such performance; 

(c) Authorizing processes that 

establish clear criteria for evaluation of 

charter applications and include a 

multi-tiered clearance or review of a 

charter school, including a final review 

immediately before the school opens for 

its first operational year; or 

(d) Authorizing processes that include 

differentiated review of charter petitions 

based on whether, and the extent to 

which, the charter school developer has 

been successful (as determined by the 

authorized public chartering agency) in 

establishing and operating one or more 

high-quality charter schools. 

Proposed Priority 4—SEAs That Have 

Never Received a CSP Grant 

Background: This proposed priority 

would assist SEAs that have never 

received a CSP grant and it would 

address a major purpose of the CSP by 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools across the Nation. A 

CSP grant can help an SEA support the 

growth of a high-quality charter school 

sector in its State beyond the startup of 

additional charter schools. The required 

elements for conducting a CSP subgrant 

program and the opportunity to share 

effective practices with other SEA 

grantees contribute to the development 

of a solid infrastructure to support 

charter schools. These required 

elements include investing in quality 

authorizing practices, developing a 

subgrant competition process, and 

disseminating information about charter 

schools and best practices in charter 

schools. Therefore, this proposed 

priority would help create and 

strengthen a community of charter 

school practitioners and supports for the 

charter school sector in the State. 

Proposed Priority: To meet this 

priority, an applicant must be an 

eligible SEA applicant that has never 

received a CSP grant. 

Types of Priorities: When inviting 

applications for a competition using one 

or more priorities, we designate the type 

of each priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirements 

Background: We propose four 

application requirements to use in 

conjunction with the statutory 

application requirements. The purpose 

of the first application requirement is to 

collect important information on charter 

school admissions lotteries, including 

any proposed student enrollment 

preferences or exemptions from the 

lottery.7 The purposes of the remaining 

three application requirements are to 

strengthen the Department’s ability to 

monitor CSP grants and ensure that 

grantees adhere to the terms of their 

approved applications, specifically 

through the development of 

comprehensive logic models and their 

definitions of a high-quality charter 

school and an academically poorperforming charter school, during their 

projects. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the 

following requirements for this program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Lottery and Enrollment Preferences: 

Describe (1) how lotteries for admission 

to charter schools will be conducted in 

your State, including any student 

enrollment preferences or exemptions 

from the lottery that charter schools are 

required or expressly permitted by the 

State to employ, and (2) any 

mechanisms that exist for the SEA or 

authorized public chartering agency to 

review, monitor, or approve such 

lotteries or student enrollment 

preferences or exemptions from the 

lottery. In addition, the SEA must 

provide an assurance that it will require 

each applicant for a CSP subgrant to 

include in its application descriptions 

of its recruitment and admissions 

policies and practices, including a 

description of the proposed lottery and 

any enrollment preferences or 

exemptions from the lottery the charter 

school employs or plans to employ, and 

how those enrollment preferences or 

exemptions are consistent with State 

law, the CSP authorizing statute, and 

CSP guidance (for information related to 

admissions and lotteries under the CSP, 

please see Section E of the CSP 

guidance at http://www2.ed.gov/

programs/charter/nonregulatoryguidance.html). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Under 34 CFR 77.1, logic model (also referred 

to as theory of action) means a well-specified 

conceptual framework that identifies key 

components of the proposed process, product, 

strategy, or practice (i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ 

that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the 

relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships 

among the key components and outcomes, 

theoretically and operationally. 

Logic model: Provide a complete logic 

model for the project, as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1.8 The logic model must 

address the role of the grant in 

promoting the State-level strategy, 

articulated in selection criterion (a), for 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools through startup 

subgrants, optional dissemination 

subgrants, optional revolving loan 

funds, and other strategies. 

High-quality charter school: Provide— 

(a) Written certification that, for the 

purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses 

the term high-quality charter schools as 

defined in this notice; or 

(b) If the State proposes to use an 

alternative definition of high-quality 

charter school in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of the definition of the 

term in this notice, (1) the specific 

definition the State proposes to use; and 

(2) a written explanation of why the 

proposed definition is at least as 

rigorous as the definition of high-quality 

charter school set forth in the 

Definitions section of this notice. 

Academically poor-performing 

charter school: Provide— 

(a) Written verification that, for 

purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses 

the term academically poor-performing 

charter schools as defined in this notice; 

or 

(b) If the State proposes to use an 

alternative definition of academically 

poor-performing charter school in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of the 

definition of the term in this notice, (1) 

the specific definition the State 

proposes to use; and (2) a written 

explanation of why the proposed 

definition is at least as rigorous as the 

definition of academically poorperforming charter school set forth in 

the Definitions section of this notice. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background: We propose to define 

four important terms associated with 

this program that are not defined in 

section 5210 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

7221i) or 34 CFR 77.1. 

Proposed Definitions: The Assistant 

Deputy Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for this program. We may 

apply one or more of these definitions 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

The proposed definitions of highquality charter school, and significant 

compliance issue are substantively 

similar to the definitions of the terms in 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions for the 

CSP Replication and Expansion grant 

program, published in the Federal 

Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898). 

While the definition of ‘‘educationally 

disadvantaged students’’ is similar to 

the definition of the term in the July 12, 

2011, notice of final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions for the 

CSP Replication and Expansion grant 

program, the definition of educationally 

disadvantaged students in this notice is 

based primarily on section 1115(b)(2) of 

the ESEA. 

Although we propose minor revisions 

to these definitions to capture the 

meaning of these terms from a State 

perspective, the substance of the 

definitions remains unchanged. 

Academically poor-performing 

charter school means— 

(a) A charter school that has been in 

operation for at least three years and 

that— 

(1) Has been identified as being in the 

lowest-performing five percent of all 

schools in the State and has failed to 

improve school performance (based on 

the SEA’s accountability system under 

the ESEA) over the past three years; and 

(2) Has failed to demonstrate student 

academic growth (at least an average of 

one grade level of growth for each 

cohort of students) in each of the past 

three years, as demonstrated by 

statewide or other assessments 

approved by the authorized public 

chartering agency; or 

(b) An SEA may use an alternative 

definition for academically poorperforming charter school, provided that 

the SEA complies with the requirements 

for proposing to use an alternative 

definition for the term as set forth in 

paragraph (b) of ‘‘Academically poorperforming charter school’’ in the 

Proposed Requirements section of this 

notice. 

Educationally disadvantaged students 

means economically disadvantaged 

students, students with disabilities, 

migrant students, limited English 

proficient students, neglected or 

delinquent students, or homeless 

students. 

High-quality charter school means— 

(a) A charter school that shows 

evidence of strong academic results for 

the past three years (or over the life of 

the school, if the school has been open 

for fewer than three years), based on the 

following factors: 

(1) Increased student academic 

achievement and attainment (including, 

if applicable, high school graduation 

rates and college and other 

postsecondary education enrollment 

rates) for all students, including, as 

applicable, educationally disadvantaged 

students served by the charter school; 

(2) Either— 

(i) Demonstrated success in closing 

historic achievement gaps for subgroups 

of students described in section 1111 of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter 

school; or 

(ii) No significant achievement gaps 

between any of the subgroups of 

students described in section 1111 of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter 

school and significant gains in student 

academic achievement for all 

populations of students served by the 

charter school; 

(3) Results (including, if applicable 

and available, performance on statewide 

tests, annual student attendance and 

retention rates, high school graduation 

rates, college and other postsecondary 

education attendance rates, and college 

and other postsecondary education 

persistence rates) for low-income and 

other educationally disadvantaged 

students served by the charter school 

that are above the average academic 

achievement results for such students in 

the State; 

(4) Results on a performance 

framework established by the State or 

authorized public chartering agency for 

purposes of evaluating charter school 

quality; and 

(5) No significant compliance issues, 

particularly in the areas of student 

safety, financial management, and 

equitable treatment of students; or 

(b) An SEA may use an alternative 

definition for high-quality charter 

school, provided that the SEA complies 

with the requirements for proposing to 

use an alternative definition for the term 

as set forth in paragraph (b) of ‘‘Highquality charter school’’ in the Proposed 

Requirements section of this notice. 

Significant compliance issue means a 

violation that did, will, or could (if not 

addressed or if it represents a pattern of 

repeated misconduct or material noncompliance) lead to the revocation of a 

school’s charter. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background: The proposed selection 

criteria would strengthen several 

components of this program, which 

include grantee accountability; 

accountability and oversight for 

authorized public chartering agencies; 

and equitable access to charter schools 

and support for educationally 

disadvantaged students. The proposed 

selection criteria also would improve 

efficacy in data collection and reporting 

by clarifying application requirements 

and streamlining the selection criteria. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68817 

Specifically, factors (1), (2), and (3) 

under proposed selection criterion (b) 

(‘‘Policy Context for Charter Schools’’) 

are based upon elements of the CSP 

authorizing statute. 

Proposed selection criteria (a) (‘‘StateLevel Strategy’’), (b) (‘‘Policy Context for 

Charter Schools’’), and (c) (‘‘Past 

Performance’’) would request that the 

SEA describe its vision and the policy 

context for charter schools in the State 

and provide evidence of the past 

performance of charter schools in the 

State. These criteria are intended to 

encourage an SEA to consider charter 

schools as a key part of its overall efforts 

to improve public education and allow 

reviewers to evaluate the context in 

which a grant might be awarded. 

Proposed selection criteria (d) 

(‘‘Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged 

Students’’), (e) (‘‘Vision for Growth and 

Accountability’’), (f) (‘‘Dissemination of 

Information and Best Practices’’), and (g) 

(‘‘Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies’’) would allow an 

SEA to focus on specific areas of 

importance for charter schools in its 

State. As noted in the Executive 

Summary, a major focus of the 

competition would be on the quality of 

the plan to support educationally 

disadvantaged students. Specifically, 

proposed selection criterion (d) 

(‘‘Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students’’) 

would ask an SEA to describe how it 

plans to support educationally 

disadvantaged students equitably and 

meaningfully. 

Proposed selection criterion (e) 

(‘‘Vision for Growth and 

Accountability’’) would ask an SEA to 

describe its vision for cultivating highperforming charter schools generally, 

while proposed selection criteria (f) 

(‘‘Dissemination of Information and Best 

Practices’’) and (g) (‘‘Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering 

Agencies’’) would ask an SEA to 

describe how it plans to disseminate 

best or promising practices of charter 

schools to each local educational agency 

(LEA) in the State. In addition, these 

criteria would ask an SEA to describe its 

efforts to strengthen authorized public 

chartering agencies’ oversight and 

approval processes for charter schools 

(including any efforts by the SEA to 

encourage authorized public chartering 

agencies to create a robust portfolio of 

charter schools, including charter 

schools with a focus on increasing 

student body diversity). By 

disseminating information on successful 

school models that incorporate student 

body diversity, and by encouraging 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

work with charter school developers to 

address student body diversity during 

the charter approval, monitoring, and 

renewal processes, these selection 

criteria would encourage the meaningful 

inclusion of student body diversity in 

charter school models, in accordance 

with applicable law, as they are being 

developed and implemented. 

Proposed selection criteria (h) 

(‘‘Management Plan and Theory of 

Action’’) and (i) (‘‘Project Design’’) 

would require an SEA to describe, in 

detail, the key elements of its proposed 

project in the form of a logic model that 

includes relevant program and projectspecific performance measures and the 

mechanics of the SEA’s planned 

subgrant competitions, including how 

such competitions would create a 

portfolio of subgrantees that focus on 

areas of need within the State. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: The 

Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications or the application 

package, or both, we will announce the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

(a) State-Level Strategy. The Secretary 

considers the quality of the State-level 

strategy for using charter schools to 

improve educational outcomes for 

students throughout the State. In 

determining the quality of the Statelevel strategy, the Secretary considers 

one or more of the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the SEA’s CSP 

activities, including the subgrant 

program, are integrated into the State’s 

overall strategy for improving student 

academic achievement and attainment 

(including high school graduation rates 

and college and other postsecondary 

education enrollment rates), and closing 

achievement and attainment gaps, and 

complement or leverage other statewide 

education reform efforts (e.g., as 

described in the State’s Race to the Top 

application or ESEA Flexibility request); 

(2) The extent to which funding 

equity for charter schools (including 

equitable funding for charter school 

facilities) is incorporated into the SEA’s 

State-level strategy; and 

(3) The extent to which the State 

encourages local strategies for 

improving student academic 

achievement and attainment that 

involve charter schools, including but 

not limited to the following: 

(i) Collaboration, including the 

sharing of data and promising 

instructional and other practices, 

between charter schools and other 

public schools or providers of early 

learning and development programs or 

alternative education programs; and 

(ii) The creation of charter schools 

that would serve as viable options for 

students who currently attend, or would 

otherwise attend, the State’s lowestperforming schools. 

(b) Policy Context for Charter Schools. 

The Secretary considers the policy 

context for charter schools under the 

proposed project. In determining the 

policy context for charter schools under 

the proposed project, the Secretary 

considers one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The degree of flexibility afforded 

to charter schools under the State’s 

charter school law, including: 

(i) The extent to which charter 

schools in the State are exempt from 

State or local rules that inhibit the 

flexible operation and management of 

public schools; and 

(ii) The extent to which charter 

schools in the State have a high degree 

of autonomy, including autonomy over 

the charter school’s budget, 

expenditures, staffing, procurement, and 

curriculum; 

(2) The quality of the SEA’s process 

for: 

(i) Annually informing each charter 

school in the State about Federal funds 

the charter school is eligible to receive 

and about Federal programs in which 

the charter school may participate; and 

(ii) Annually ensuring that each 

charter school in the State receives, in 

a timely fashion, the school’s 

commensurate share of Federal funds 

that are allocated by formula each year, 

particularly during the first year of 

operation of the school and during a 

year in which the school’s enrollment 

expands significantly; and 

(3) The quality of the SEA’s plan to 

ensure that charter schools that are 

considered to be LEAs under State law 

and that LEAs in which charter schools 

are located will comply with sections 

613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6101 et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), 

title IX of the Education Amendments of 

1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), and 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (29 U.S.C. 794). 

(c) Past Performance. The Secretary 

considers the past performance of 

charter schools in a State that enacted 

a charter school law for the first time 

five or more years before submission of 

its application. In determining the past 

performance of charter schools in a 

State that enacted a charter school law 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

for the first time five or more years 

before submission of the SEA’s 

application, the Secretary considers one 

or more of the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which there has been 

a demonstrated increase, for each of the 

past five years, in the number and 

percentage of high-quality charter 

schools (as defined in this notice) in the 

State; 

(2) The extent to which there has been 

a demonstrated reduction, for each of 

the past five years, in the number and 

percentage of academically poorperforming charter schools (as defined 

in this notice) in the State; and 

(3) Whether, and the extent to which, 

the academic achievement and 

academic attainment (including high 

school graduation rates and college and 

other postsecondary education 

enrollment rates) of charter school 

students equal or exceed the academic 

achievement and academic attainment 

of similar students in other public 

schools in the State over the past five 

years. 

(d) Quality of Plan to Support 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the SEA’s plan to support educationally 

disadvantaged students. In determining 

the quality of the plan to support 

educationally disadvantaged students, 

the Secretary considers one or more of 

the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the SEA’s 

charter school subgrant program 

would— 

(i) Assist students, particularly 

educationally disadvantaged students, 

in meeting and exceeding State 

academic content standards and State 

student achievement standards; and 

(ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement 

gaps for educationally disadvantaged 

students; 

(2) The quality of the SEA’s plan to 

ensure that charter schools attract, 

recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain 

educationally disadvantaged students 

equitably, meaningfully, and, with 

regard to educationally disadvantaged 

students who are students with 

disabilities or English learners, in a 

manner consistent with, as appropriate, 

the IDEA (regarding students with 

disabilities) and civil rights laws, in 

particular, section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 

and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964; 

(3) The extent to which the SEA will 

encourage innovations in charter 

schools, such as models, policies, 

supports, or structures, that are 

designed to improve the academic 

achievement of educationally 

disadvantaged students; and 

(4) The quality of the SEA’s plan for 

monitoring all charter schools to ensure 

compliance with Federal and State laws, 

particularly laws related to educational 

equity, nondiscrimination, and access to 

public schools for educationally 

disadvantaged students. 

(e) Vision for Growth and 

Accountability. The Secretary 

determines the quality of the SEA’s 

vision for charter school growth and 

accountability. In determining the 

quality of the SEA’s vision, the 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following factors: 

(1) The quality of the SEA’s systems 

for collecting, analyzing, and publicly 

reporting data on charter school 

performance, including data on student 

academic achievement, attainment 

(including high school graduation rates 

and college and other postsecondary 

education enrollment rates), retention, 

and discipline for all students and 

disaggregated by student subgroup; 

(2) The ambition, vision, and 

feasibility of the SEA’s plan (including 

key actions) to support the creation of 

high-quality charter schools during the 

project period, including a reasonable 

estimate of the number of high-quality 

charter schools to be created in the State 

during the project period; and 

(3) The ambition, vision, and 

feasibility of the SEA’s plan (including 

key actions) to support the closure of 

academically poor-performing charter 

schools in the State (i.e., through 

revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary 

termination of a charter) during the 

project period. 

(f) Dissemination of Information and 

Best Practices. The Secretary considers 

the quality of the SEA’s plan to 

disseminate information about charter 

schools and best or promising practices 

of successful charter schools to each 

LEA in the State as well as to charter 

schools, other public schools, and 

charter school developers (20 U.S.C. 

7221(b)(2); 20 U.S.C. 7221(c)(f)(6)). If an 

SEA proposes to use a portion of its 

grant funds for dissemination subgrants 

under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA 

(20 U.S.C. 7221c), the SEA should 

incorporate these subgrants into the 

overall plan for dissemination. In 

determining the quality of the SEA’s 

plan to disseminate information about 

charter schools and best or promising 

practices of successful charter schools, 

the Secretary considers one or more of 

the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the SEA will 

serve as a leader in the State for 

identifying and disseminating 

information (which may include, but is 

not limited to, providing technical 

assistance) about best or promising 

practices in successful charter schools, 

including how the SEA will use 

measures of efficacy and data in 

identifying such practices and assessing 

the impact of its dissemination 

activities; 

(2) The quality of the SEA’s plan for 

disseminating information and research 

on best or promising practices used and 

benefits of charter schools that 

effectively incorporate student body 

diversity, including racial and ethnic 

diversity and diversity with respect to 

educationally disadvantaged students, 

consistent with applicable law; 

(3) The quality of the SEA’s plan for 

disseminating information and research 

on best or promising practices in charter 

schools related to student discipline and 

school climate; and 

(4) For an SEA that proposes to use a 

portion of its grant funds to award 

dissemination subgrants under section 

5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

7221a), the quality of the subgrant 

award process and the likelihood that 

such dissemination activities will 

increase the number of high-quality 

charter schools in the State and 

contribute to improved student 

academic achievement. 

(g) Oversight of Authorized Public 

Chartering Agencies. The Secretary 

considers the quality of the SEA’s plan 

(including any use of grant 

administrative or other funds) to 

monitor, evaluate, assist, and hold 

accountable authorized public 

chartering agencies. In determining the 

quality of the SEA’s plan to provide 

oversight to authorized public 

chartering agencies, the Secretary 

considers how well the SEA’s plan will 

ensure that authorized public chartering 

agencies are— 

(1) Seeking and approving charter 

school petitions from developers with 

the capacity to create high-quality 

charter schools; 

(2) Approving charter school petitions 

with design elements that incorporate 

evidence-based school models and 

practices, including, but not limited to, 

school models and practices that focus 

on racial and ethnic diversity in student 

bodies and diversity in student bodies 

with respect to educationally 

disadvantaged students, consistent with 

applicable law; 

(3) Establishing measureable 

academic and operational performance 

expectations for all charter schools 

(including alternative charter schools, 

virtual charter schools, and charter 

schools that include pre-kindergarten, if 

such schools exist in the State) that 

include, but are not limited to, the 

elements of high-quality charter schools 

as defined in this notice; 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68819 

(4) Monitoring their charter schools 

on at least an annual basis, including 

conducting an in-depth review of each 

charter school at least once every five 

years, to ensure that charter schools are 

meeting the terms of their charters and 

complying with applicable State and 

Federal laws; 

(5) Using increases in student 

academic achievement as the most 

important factor in renewal decisions; 

basing renewal decisions on a 

comprehensive set of criteria, which are 

set forth in the charter contract; and 

revoking, not renewing, or encouraging 

the voluntary termination of charters 

held by academically poor-performing 

charter schools; 

(6) Providing, on an annual basis, 

public reports on the performance of 

their portfolios of charter schools, 

including the performance of each 

individual charter school with respect 

to meeting the terms of, and 

expectations set forth in, the school’s 

charter contract. 

(7) Supporting charter school 

autonomy while holding charter schools 

accountable for results and meeting the 

terms of their charters and performance 

agreements; and 

(8) Ensuring the continued 

accountability of charter schools during 

any transition to new State assessments 

or accountability systems, including 

those based on college- and career-ready 

standards. 

(h) Management Plan and Theory of 

Action. The Secretary considers the 

quality of the management plan and the 

project’s theory of action. In 

determining the quality of the 

management plan and the project’s 

theory of action, the Secretary considers 

one or more of the following factors: 

(1) The quality, cohesion, and 

reasoning of the logic model (as defined 

in 34 CFR 77.1 (c)), including the extent 

to which it addresses the role of the 

grant in promoting the State-level 

strategy for using charter schools to 

improve educational outcomes for 

students through CSP subgrants for 

planning, program design, and initial 

implementation; optional dissemination 

subgrants; optional revolving loan 

funds; and other strategies; 

(2) The extent to which the SEA’s 

project-specific performance measures, 

including any measures required by the 

Department, support the logic model; 

and 

(3) The adequacy of the management 

plan to— 

(i) Achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including the existence of 

clearly defined responsibilities, 

timelines, and milestones for 

accomplishing project tasks; and 

(ii) Address any compliance issues or 

findings related to the CSP that are 

identified in an audit or other 

monitoring review. 

(i) Project Design. The Secretary 

considers the quality of the design of the 

SEA’s charter school subgrant program, 

including the extent to which the 

project design furthers the SEA’s overall 

strategy for increasing the number of 

high-quality charter schools in the State 

and improving student academic 

achievement. In determining the quality 

of the project design, the Secretary 

considers one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The quality of the SEA’s charter 

school subgrant awards process, and the 

dissemination subgrant awards process, 

if applicable, including: 

(i) The subgrant application and peer 

review process, timelines for these 

processes, and how the SEA intends to 

ensure that subgrants will be awarded to 

applicants demonstrating the capacity to 

create high-quality charter schools; and 

(ii) A reasonable year-by-year 

estimate, with supporting evidence, of 

the number of subgrants the SEA 

expects to award during the project 

period and the average size of those 

subgrants, including an explanation of 

any assumptions upon which the 

estimates are based, and if the SEA has 

previously received a CSP grant, the 

percentage of eligible applicants that 

were awarded subgrants and how this 

percentage related to the overall quality 

of the applicant pool; 

(2) The process for monitoring CSP 

subgrantees; 

(3) How the SEA will create a 

portfolio of subgrantees that focuses on 

areas of need within the State, such as 

increasing student body diversity, and 

how this prioritization aligns with the 

State-level strategy; 

(4) The steps the SEA will take to 

inform teachers, parents, and 

communities of the SEA’s charter school 

subgrant program; and 

(5) A description of any requested 

waivers of statutory or regulatory 

provisions over which the Secretary 

exercises administrative authority and 

the extent to which those waivers will, 

if granted, further the objectives of the 

project. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria: We 

will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

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 loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of more than $100 million 

because we anticipate awarding more 

than $100 million in grants to SEAs in 

FY 2015. Therefore, this proposed 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to review by OMB under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this proposed regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits would justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the potential costs and benefits 

of this action as well as regulatory 

alternatives we considered. 

Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that this 

regulatory action would not impose 

significant costs on eligible SEAs, 

whose participation in this program is 

voluntary. This action would not 

impose requirements on participating 

SEAs apart from those related to 

preparing an application for a CSP 

grant. The costs associated with meeting 

these requirements are, in the 

Department’s estimation, minimal. 

This regulatory action would 

strengthen accountability for the use of 

Federal funds by helping to ensure that 

the Department selects for CSP grants 

the SEAs that are most capable of 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools available to our Nation’s 

students, consistent with the purpose of 

the program as described in section 

5201 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221). 

Similarly, this action would benefit 

participating SEAs by supporting their 

efforts to encourage the development 

and operation of high-quality charter 

schools. The Department believes that 

these benefits to the Federal government 

and to SEAs outweigh the costs 

associated with this action. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department believes that the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria proposed in this notice 

are needed to administer the program 

effectively. As an alternative to 

promulgating the proposed selection 

criteria, the Department could choose 

from among the selection factors 

authorized for CSP grants to SEAs in 

section 5204(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

7221c) and the general selection criteria 

in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe 

that these factors and criteria provide a 

sufficient basis on which to evaluate the 

quality of applications. In particular, the 

factors and criteria would not 

sufficiently enable the Department to 

assess an applicant’s past performance 

with respect to the operation of highquality charter schools or the closure of 

academically poor-performing charter 

schools (as would be examined under 

proposed selection criterion (c) ‘‘Past 

Performance’’) or its plan to hold 

authorized public chartering agencies 

accountable for the performance of 

charter schools that they approve (as 

under criterion (g) ‘‘Oversight of 

Authorized Public Chartering 

Agencies’’), considerations which are 

critically important in determining 

applicant quality. 

We note that several of the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice are based on 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and other provisions in the 

authorizing statute for this program. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to SEAs. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[in millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$100. 

From Whom to 

Whom? 

From the Federal 

Government to 

SEAs. 

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. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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 via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can 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). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68821 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: November 13, 2014. 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27264 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817; FRL–9918–60– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ93 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants: Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 12, 2013, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

finalized amendments to the national 

emission standards for the control of 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

from the new and existing Portland 

cement manufacturing industry at major 

sources of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP). Subsequently, the EPA has 

become aware of certain minor technical 

errors in those amendments, and is, 

accordingly, proposing amendments 

and technical corrections to the final 

rule. In addition, the EPA plans to 

remove rule provisions establishing an 

affirmative defense in the final technical 

correction rule. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before January 20, 2015, 

or 30 days after date of public hearing, 

if later. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by November 24, 2014, we will 

hold a public hearing on December 4, 

2014 on the EPA campus at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0817 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0817. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. In addition, please mail a 

copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0817. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0817. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

November 24, 2014, the public hearing 

will be held on December 4, 2014 at the 

EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. The hearing will begin at 1:00 

p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and 

conclude at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard 

Time). Please contact Ms. Pamela 

Garrett at (919) 541–7966 or to register 

to speak at the hearing, or to inquire 

about whether a hearing will be held. 

The last day to pre-register in advance 

to speak at the hearings will be 

December 1, 2014. Additionally, 

requests to speak will be taken the day 

of the hearing at the hearing registration 

desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If 

you require the service of a translator or 

special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. If you require an 

accommodation, we ask that you preregister for the hearing, as we may not 

be able to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. 

The hearing will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, 

views or arguments concerning the 

proposed action. The EPA will make 

every effort to accommodate all speakers 

who arrive and register. Because this 

hearing is being held at a U.S. 

government facility, individuals 

planning to attend the hearing should be 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS