Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40647 

§ 165.T09–0539 Safety Zone; City of 

Menominee Fireworks; Green Bay, 

Menominee, MI. 

(a) Location. All waters of Green Bay, 

in the vicinity of Menominee Marina 

within a 1000-foot radius of a position 

at 45°6′26.3′′ N and 087°35′59.2′′ W 

(NAD 83). 

(b) Effective and enforcement periods. 

This rule is effective from July 4, 2014 

until August 9, 2014. This rule will be 

enforced with actual notice from 9 p.m. 

until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014, and 

from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 

9, 2014. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan or her designated onscene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan or her designated onscene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan 

is any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

designated by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan to act on her behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the Captain of the Port, Lake 

Michigan or her on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. The 

Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or 

her on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or 

her on-scene representative. 

Dated: June 30, 2014. 

A.B. Cocanour, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16327 Filed 7–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[CFDA Number: 84.282N] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, and 

Definitions—Charter Schools Program 

(CSP) Grants for National Leadership 

Activities 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement announces final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions under the 

CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities. The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary may use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 

and later years. 

DATES: Effective Date: These final 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

are effective August 13, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Martin, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Telephone: (202) 205–9085. Or by 

email: brian.martin@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: 

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 academic 

achievement, staff, and parents; 

(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools (as defined in 

the notice) available to students across 

the Nation; and 

(4) Encouraging the States to provide 

support to charter schools for facilities 

financing in an amount that is more 

commensurate with the amount the 

States have typically provided for nonchartered public schools. 

The purpose of the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities (CFDA 

84.282N) is to support efforts by eligible 

entities to improve the quality of charter 

schools by providing technical 

assistance and other types of support on 

issues of national significance and 

scope. 

Program Authority 

The CSP is authorized under 20 

U.S.C. 7221–7221i; CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities are 

authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d. 

The U.S. Department of Education 

(Department) published a notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definitions (NPP) for the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities in the 

Federal Register on December 3, 2013 

(78 FR 72600). The NPP contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, and definitions. 

The Analysis of Comments and 

Changes section in this notice describes 

the differences between the priorities, 

requirements, and definitions we 

proposed in the NPP and these final 

priorities, requirements, and definitions. 

The two most significant changes are as 

follows: 

We revised the language in Priority 

2—Improving Accountability to clarify 

how applicants can describe how their 

projects will improve authorized public 

chartering agencies’ capacity to approve 

new charter schools. We made this 

change because the proposed priority 

referred to authorized public chartering 

agencies’ capacity to approve only highquality charter schools, which, as 

defined in this notice, requires that the 

school show 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). While authorized public 

chartering agencies, or authorizers, 

should approve only high-quality 

charter petitions, it is not feasible for 

authorizers to approve only high-quality 

charter schools as defined in this notice, 

as the definition would not allow an 

authorizer to approve a new charter 

school with no academic achievement 

data. 

We revised Priority 3—Students with 

Disabilities and Priority 4—English 

Learners to allow applicants to address 

the priorities by promoting collaborative 

activities between charter schools, nonchartered public schools, and as 

applicable, key special education 

stakeholders or key English learner 

stakeholders, which are designed to 

improve academic achievement and 

attainment outcomes for these student 

subgroups. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 38 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address comments 

that raise concerns not directly related 

to the proposed priorities, requirements, 

or definitions. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Priorities 

Comment: Multiple commenters made 

suggestions regarding how each of the 

priorities should be designated (i.e., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

absolute, competitive preference, or 

invitational). Specifically, one 

commenter suggested that we use 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale as an 

invitational priority because, according 

to the commenter, the objectives of the 

priority are already in place through 

cooperative agreements with school 

districts and private organizations. 

Another commenter suggested that due 

to the overall growth of English learners, 

Priority 4—English Learners should be a 

competitive preference priority. A third 

commenter suggested that Priority 5— 

Personalized Technology-Enabled 

Learning should be an absolute priority, 

as positive impact can be seen across all 

student subgroups. 

Discussion: This notice is designed 

only to establish the priorities that we 

may choose to use in the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities 

competitions in 2015 and future years. 

We do not designate whether a priority 

will be absolute, competitive, or 

invitational in this notice; we retain the 

flexibility to determine how best to 

designate the priorities to ensure that 

funded projects address the most 

pressing areas of need for competitions 

in 2015 or in future years. When 

inviting applications for a competition 

using one or more of these priorities, we 

will designate the type of each priority 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that each of the priorities should place 

more of an emphasis on communication 

and dissemination activities in order to 

ensure that each project’s effectiveness 

can be reviewed and evaluated by other 

organizations. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

suggestion and agree that the evaluation 

of a project and the communication and 

dissemination of information about a 

project’s effectiveness are important. 

Because entities receiving the CSP 

Grants for National Leadership 

Activities are required to demonstrate 

how they will disseminate information 

at the charter school national level (as 

defined in this notice), an emphasis on 

communication and dissemination 

already exists in this notice. Although 

we agree project evaluation and 

dissemination of the results of the 

evaluation are critical to the CSP Grants 

for National Leadership Activities, we 

do not think it is necessary to develop 

a program-specific requirement 

regarding evaluation because evaluation 

design can be addressed through 

selection criteria. Specifically, the 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 

include a selection criterion under 34 

CFR 75.210(h), Quality of the Project 

Evaluation, that provides selection 

factors that encourage applicants to 

conduct rigorous evaluations of their 

projects and disseminate relevant 

findings, which could be incorporated 

in the selection criteria for a future 

competition under this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

creating a priority designed to increase 

the development and refinement of 

charter school leaders. One of the 

commenters stated that creating a 

leadership pipeline was important, 

particularly in the current context of 

major reforms, including the 

implementation of Common Core State 

Standards and new teacher evaluation 

systems. Both commenters stated that 

high-quality leaders are of critical 

national importance as States launch 

new assessments aligned with collegeand career-ready standards. 

Discussion: We agree that improving 

human capital development for the 

charter school sector is of national 

significance. However, we do not think 

a separate priority is needed to address 

this issue. We note that applicants 

already have flexibility to incorporate 

activities involving human capital 

development as part of projects 

addressing Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

that the Department add an additional 

priority, ‘‘Promoting Racial and 

Economic Diversity.’’ Another 

commenter proposed we add a similar 

priority with a focus on diversity and 

cultural competency. Both commenters 

noted that the absence of a school 

diversity priority is especially troubling 

in light of Department publications that 

emphasize the importance of, and offer 

guidance with respect to, issues 

regarding diversity in public education. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns and agree that 

increasing diversity is important; 

however, we do not think a separate 

priority is needed. We note that efforts 

to increase diversity and cultural 

competency can be included as 

allowable activities under the priorities 

selected for CSP Grants for National 

Leadership Activities competitions. In 

addition, the eligible applicants under 

other CSP competitions, such as those 

under the CSP State Educational Agency 

(SEA) competition, whose grantees 

provide start-up and dissemination 

grants directly to individual charter 

schools, are likely better suited to 

increase diversity in charter schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we create an additional priority that 

rewards applicants that demonstrate 

their schools have an expulsion and 

suspension rate similar to, or lower 

than, the schools in their surrounding 

communities or school districts. In 

addition, the commenter recommended 

preference be given to grant applicants 

under this program that have a record of 

serving students with disabilities and 

English learners at the same or better 

rates than their surrounding 

communities or school districts. 

Discussion: Although we appreciate 

the commenter’s concerns, the CSP 

Grants for National Leadership 

Activities competition is designed to 

support projects of national significance 

for charter schools and is not meant to 

award points based on the specific 

characteristics of a given school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

we add a priority addressing the 

following topics: curriculum, 

instruction and assessment, data-driven 

decision-making and analysis, 

performance management, and 

professional learning communities. 

Discussion: We agree that each of the 

topics above, especially for the purpose 

of improving student achievement and 

teacher effectiveness, is an area of 

national significance. However, we do 

not think a separate priority is needed 

to address these topics as applicants 

already have flexibility to incorporate 

these topics as part of projects 

addressing Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that many charter school incubators and 

other investing organizations play a 

major role in opening and closing 

charter schools; therefore, the 

Department should consider assisting 

such organizations in increasing the 

quality of their investment processes 

and the sharing of their best practices 

under this program. 

Discussion: We think investing 

organizations, such as charter school 

incubators, play an important role in the 

charter school sector. We note that 

applicants already have flexibility to 

incorporate these concepts as part of 

projects addressing Priority 1— 

Improving Efficiency through Economies 

of Scale. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended removing the national 

scope requirement from Priority 1— 

Improving Efficiency through Economies 

of Scale and Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability. The commenter stated 

that, for Priority 1, the costs of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40649 

providing services for English learners 

and students with disabilities, and 

educators, in addition to the costs 

associated with bringing schools in 

different geographic locations together, 

far outweigh the costs saved by 

developing systems of scale. The 

commenter stated that Priority 2’s 

requirement for projects of national 

significance and scope would exclude 

authorized public chartering agencies 

that limit their charters to only one 

State. 

Discussion: As the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities 

competition is dedicated to national 

activities, it is important that we award 

grants for projects with a national 

relevance. We disagree that the cost of 

implementing a project that is national 

in its scope outweighs the benefits of 

developing shared systems of 

collaboration and information. In 

Priority 1, the Department encourages 

organizations affiliated with the charter 

school sector to implement innovative 

ideas for achieving economies of scale 

and aggregating demand in the charter 

sector. Applicants addressing these 

priorities must describe how the project 

will have national significance and 

scope. However, the priorities do not 

dictate how an individual applicant 

should incorporate national significance 

or scope into its proposed project. We 

think that if an applicant proposed a 

project that would occur within only 

one State, but still demonstrated that the 

proposed project is of national 

significance and scope and meets all 

requirements, the proposed project 

could be eligible under Priority 1 or 

Priority 2. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

eliminating Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale. 

One commenter felt that the priority 

does not warrant enough importance for 

this competition. A second commenter 

stated that the idea behind the priority 

was appealing, but that, in practice, 

transaction costs often outweigh any 

sustainable economies of scale. 

Discussion: We think Priority 1 is 

important for this competition, as it will 

encourage more collaboration and 

improve efficiencies in the charter 

sector. This priority is intended to 

address the barriers that charter schools 

experience when trying to achieve 

economies of scale, and to promote 

shared systems for acquiring and 

developing resources supporting the 

charter school sector. By promoting 

projects of national significance that can 

encourage such shared systems and that 

support the dissemination and 

replication of successful practices 

nationally, including the assembly of 

communities of practice, we think 

eligible applicants will address the 

concerns and transaction costs that can 

potentially discourage such 

partnerships and collaborations. In 

addition, we think that the creation of 

partnerships and collaborations will 

foster the development of innovative 

practices in scaling operational services 

that may benefit schools. This priority is 

not only for charter school 

collaborations that are achieving 

economies of scale but could also be for 

organizations bringing charter schools 

together to develop economies of scale 

and thus reduce the costs and burden 

placed on the schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale appears to 

indicate that urban centers may receive 

preferential treatment over rural areas. 

The commenter suggested that a 

competition of truly national scope 

must include a goal of creating and 

supporting both a single site and a 

network of vibrant rural sites, as well as 

serving large urban areas. 

Discussion: The priorities are 

designed to encourage charter school 

projects with a national scope and 

significance. The definition of ‘‘charter 

school national level’’ used in Priority 

1—Improving Efficiency through 

Economies of Scale and Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability states that the 

applicant’s dissemination strategy at the 

charter school national level will consist 

of working across multiple States across 

the country, including rural and urban 

areas. Other priorities only require that 

projects are of national significance and 

scope, which does not give preference to 

urban centers over rural areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged that 

a series of in-depth cost studies be 

undertaken to provide a detailed 

overview of the types of costs associated 

with Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern regarding the 

types of costs associated with Priority 

1—Improving Efficiency through 

Economies of Scale. Applicants that 

apply under this priority would need to 

describe how, and the extent to which, 

the activities proposed in their 

applications will achieve efficiencies. 

These narrative descriptions in the 

applications, along with the other 

measures in paragraphs (2) through (5) 

of Priority 1 will allow peer reviewers 

to evaluate whether, and to what extent, 

applicants will achieve efficiencies in 

the use of time, staff, money, services 

for special populations, or other 

resources. Provided an applicant meets 

all requirements under this priority, the 

applicant could propose to use these 

funds to conduct a cost study as part of 

its proposed project activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked if 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale supports 

economies of scale that can arise from 

teacher-based cooperative arrangements 

or human capital management 

solutions. The commenter also asked 

how the priority would apply to 

individual schools, or whether a critical 

evaluation of office products or services, 

group licensing of licensed services, or 

a comparison with various sources of 

teachers and leaders from the cost 

efficiency perspective would be 

sufficient to meeting the requirements of 

the priority. In addition, the commenter 

asked if Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale would 

apply to efficiencies across providers 

within a sector. 

Discussion: Individual charter 

schools, provided they meet all 

requirements under this priority, would 

be eligible to apply as part of an existing 

or proposed partnership or consortium. 

An individual charter school would not 

be eligible to apply under this priority 

independent of an existing or proposed 

partnership or consortium. As stated in 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale, applicants 

should seek innovative solutions to 

achieve efficiencies in the use of time, 

staff, money, services for special 

populations, or other resources for the 

purpose of creating, supporting, and 

sustaining high-quality charter schools 

(as defined in this notice). If teacherbased cooperative agreements, human 

capital management solutions, critical 

evaluations of office products or 

services, group licensing of licensed 

services, a comparison with various 

sources of teachers and leaders from the 

cost efficiency perspective, or other 

proposed activities would achieve these 

efficiencies, an applicant could include 

these activities to address Priority 1. 

Similarly, if proposed activities to 

increase the efficiencies across 

providers within a sector meet all 

requirements under this priority, an 

applicant could include those activities 

to address Priority 1. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that under Priority 1— 

Improving Efficiency through Economies 

of Scale, we consider how applicants 

can demonstrate that their policies, 

processes, and communications will 

achieve efficiencies in assisting special 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40650 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

populations, or any activities related to 

running a high-quality charter school. 

Discussion: Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale is 

not limited to specific economies of 

scale, such as assisting special 

populations, or the specific activities of 

operating a high-quality charter school 

(as defined in this notice). We want all 

applicants to consider, based on their 

experience, the areas of greatest need for 

the charter school sector to determine 

how to address the priority. As such, 

applicants have the flexibility and 

discretion to propose projects that 

achieve efficiencies in any of the areas 

included in the priority language. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale include the 

possibility for organizations that have 

collaborations already in place to apply 

for funding. 

Discussion: Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale is 

intended to encourage the development 

of consortia of charter schools that will 

share systems for acquiring goods or 

services. We edited the second 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1— 

Improving Efficiency through Economies 

of Scale to clarify that existing 

partnerships or consortia could apply 

under this priority. We agree that this 

change is appropriate to further the 

purpose of the program and Priority 1. 

Changes: We changed the second 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to 

‘‘An applicant addressing this priority 

must apply as part of an existing or 

proposed partnership or consortium that 

includes two or more high-quality 

charter schools, as defined in this 

notice . . .’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the goal of Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale is 

undermined by not including charter 

management organizations (CMOs) 

seeking to promote shared services and 

systems. The commenter noted that 

CMOs are often at the forefront of efforts 

to share services and systems, and that 

successful CMOs can serve as national 

models and leaders for district and 

charter schools in developing these 

shared systems and economies of scale. 

Conversely, another commenter 

suggested that Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale 

clarify whether eligible applicants must 

be CMOs. 

Discussion: To clarify, CMOs are 

eligible applicants under Priority 1. 

Eligible applicants include public and 

private nonprofit organizations with a 

mission that explicitly includes 

operating, supporting, or managing 

charter schools; this eligibility includes 

CMOs and many other types of 

organizations. In addition, upon further 

review, we determined that the language 

of the proposed priority would have 

allowed a single CMO to develop a 

partnership or consortium comprised 

solely of schools within its network, 

which was not the intent. We revised 

paragraph (2) of Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale 

to clarify that the applicant must 

describe how activities will include 

members or proposed members that are 

not affiliated exclusively with a 

common network (e.g., a charter 

management organization). As such, a 

CMO applicant’s project must include 

other entities beyond its current 

network. This requirement does not 

exclude CMOs from applying, but it 

does require project applications from 

CMOs to identify members of the 

proposed partnership or consortium 

beyond their network. 

Change: We revised paragraph (2) of 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale to ‘‘The 

members or proposed members of the 

partnership or consortium, how the 

composition of this partnership or 

consortium contributes to achieving 

efficiencies, and the specific activities 

each member or proposed member will 

implement. Applicants must 

demonstrate that members of the 

existing or proposed partnership or 

consortium are not affiliated exclusively 

with a common network (e.g., a charter 

management organization).’’ 

Comment: Two commenters made 

suggestions regarding consortia in 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale. One 

commenter suggested that charter 

schools that are not yet high-quality 

charter schools be allowed to participate 

in consortia and receive services 

through consortia. The commenter 

noted that the current language could be 

interpreted to only allow consortia to 

serve schools that already meet the 

definition of high-quality charter 

schools, thus reducing the effectiveness 

and viability of consortia. In addition, 

one commenter suggested that the 

priority should not be limited to 

developing consortia of charter schools 

but rather encourage the development of 

any innovative system that achieves 

economies of scale in the charter sector. 

Discussion: The Department would 

like to clarify that Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale 

does not limit consortia to serving only 

schools that meet the definition of highquality charter schools; however, all 

charter schools that apply as part of a 

partnership or consortium, or apply 

under a group application, must meet 

that definition. The purpose of this 

priority is to establish a connected 

group that will create an opportunity for 

charter schools to develop strategies and 

practices to assist the charter schools in 

becoming high-quality charter schools 

(as defined in this notice). This priority 

creates an opportunity for charter 

schools to develop strategies and 

practices that will assist them in 

becoming high-quality charter schools, 

as defined by standards in this notice or 

by State and authorizer standards, 

whichever are more rigorous. Consortia 

members are not limited to charter 

schools; they may be comprised of any 

organizations that meet the eligibility 

requirements under the Eligibility 

section of this notice. As discussed 

elsewhere in this notice, we clarified 

this point by editing the second 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1. In 

addition, upon further review of the 

priority language, we changed the first 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1 and 

paragraph (3) of Priority 1. Creating and 

sustaining high-quality charter schools 

(as defined in this notice) is a 

fundamental component of high-quality 

authorizing; however, while authorized 

public chartering agencies should only 

approve petitions from applicants that 

demonstrate the capacity to create highquality charter schools, we recognize 

that it is not possible for newly created 

charter schools to meet the definition of 

a high-quality charter school because 

the definition includes a requirement 

that the school show 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). As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, new charter schools would 

not be able to meet the requirements of 

this definition. In addition to language 

that would help in creating charter 

schools that demonstrate the capacity to 

become high-quality and in sustaining 

those that are high-quality, we added 

language to support new charter schools 

in becoming high-quality. 

Changes: We revised the first 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1— 

Improving Efficiency through Economies 

of Scale by replacing ‘‘creating and 

sustaining high-quality charter schools’’ 

with ‘‘creating, supporting, and 

sustaining high-quality charter schools 

(as defined in this notice).’’ In addition, 

in paragraph (3) of Priority 1, we 

replaced ‘‘How proposed project 

activities will help create and sustain 

high-quality charter schools’’ with 

‘‘How the proposed project activities 

will help create charter schools that 

demonstrate the capacity to become 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40651 

high-quality charter schools, support 

new charter schools to become highquality charter schools, and sustain 

charter schools that are high-quality.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that under Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale, 

we broaden the scope of allowable 

activities to encourage information 

sharing and efforts, such as developing 

common systems of open enrollment. 

Discussion: As stated in Priority 1— 

Improving Efficiency through Economies 

of Scale, applicants should seek 

innovative solutions to achieve 

efficiencies in the use of time, staff, 

money, services for special populations, 

or other resources for the purpose of 

creating, supporting, and sustaining 

high-quality charter schools (as defined 

in this notice). As written, the priority 

language provides applicants the 

flexibility and discretion to propose 

projects that achieve efficiencies in any 

of the areas included in the priority 

language. As such, an applicant is not 

prohibited from proposing activities to 

encourage information sharing and 

efforts such as developing common 

systems of open enrollment so long as 

that applicant meets the requirements of 

this priority and all eligibility 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add language to paragraphs (1) 

and (2) under Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale 

that requires applicants to document the 

involvement of parents and other 

members from the community where 

the charter school will be located. The 

commenter also suggested that 

applicants should be required to 

communicate guidance, rules, policy 

changes, and expectations to approved 

charter schools and the school’s student 

applicants in an effective and timely 

manner. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for family and 

community engagement and effective 

communication with charter schools 

and their applicants and think because 

of the wide range of projects that could 

be considered under this priority, it is 

not appropriate to require a family and 

community engagement component of 

all applicants. In addition, a 

requirement to communicate guidance, 

rules, policy changes, and expectations 

to approved charter schools and the 

school’s student applicants in an 

effective and timely manner would be 

included in a grant application and not 

in this final priority. Such requirements, 

if any, will be detailed in the notice 

inviting applications or application 

package for any future competition 

under this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review, we 

determined that paragraph (1) of 

proposed Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale, 

which supports projects that improve 

efficiency in the ‘‘use of time, staff, 

money, services for special populations, 

or other areas,’’ should be revised. We 

think that the word ‘‘areas’’ is too broad, 

and that ‘‘resources’’ suggests achieving 

economic efficiencies in a way that 

‘‘areas’’ does not. 

Changes: In paragraph (1) of Priority 

1—Improving Efficiency through 

Economies of Scale, we replaced 

‘‘areas’’ with ‘‘resources.’’ This change 

also maintains consistency in the 

language with the first sentence of the 

priority. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review, we 

realized that in the introductory 

paragraph of Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency through Economies of Scale, 

we refer to ‘‘partnership or consortium’’ 

but we also refer to ‘‘consortium or 

consortia’’ in the priority. We want to 

maintain consistent language in these 

references. 

Changes: We replaced ‘‘consortium or 

consortia’’ in the second introductory 

paragraph and paragraph (1) with 

‘‘partnership or consortium.’’ 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review, we 

determined that we could avoid using 

both ‘‘primarily’’ and ‘‘primary’’ in the 

same sentence in paragraph (4) of 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale without 

changing the intended meaning. 

Accordingly, we have replaced 

‘‘primary’’ with ‘‘chief.’’ In addition, in 

that same paragraph, we added LEAs as 

an example of a stakeholder group to 

whom the project activities could be 

disseminated secondarily. 

Changes: We replaced the phrase 

‘‘primarily to charter schools as the 

primary stakeholder group’’ with 

‘‘primarily to charter schools as the 

chief stakeholder group.’’ We also 

included the term ‘‘LEAs’’ to read 

‘‘. . . such as charter school support 

organizations, LEAs, and authorized 

public chartering agencies, as 

appropriate, at the charter school 

national level (as defined in this 

notice).’’ 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review of 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale, we 

determined that the dissemination 

strategy required under paragraph (4) 

includes dissemination at the charter 

school national level (as defined in this 

notice) and this creates confusion with 

the ‘‘national significance and scope’’ 

described in paragraph (6). To clarify 

our intent, we have edited ‘‘national 

significance and scope’’ to ‘‘national 

significance’’ in paragraph (6). 

Changes: We replaced ‘‘national 

significance and scope’’ with ‘‘national 

significance’’ in paragraph (6) of Priority 

1—Improving Efficiency through 

Economies of Scale. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a statement in the background 

section to Proposed Priority 2-– 

Improving Accountability in the NPP be 

retracted. The sentence in the NPP said, 

‘‘Once schools are open, accountability 

practices for charter schools need to be 

strengthened within States.’’ In 

addition, the commenter noted that use 

of the term ‘‘more consistently’’ in this 

same section of the background in the 

NPP has no backing to substantiate the 

claim that authorizers need to review 

their accountability practices. 

Discussion: In the background section 

for this priority in the NPP, we provided 

an explanation of the development of 

the priority. Because charter schools 

across the country are not authorized by 

a single entity and 43 distinct sets of 

State laws govern charter schools, the 

potential for inconsistency exists in how 

charter schools are held accountable for 

their academic, financial, and 

operational performance results. In 

addition, we think that accountability 

practices for charter schools need to be 

strengthened within States. Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability is designed to 

support improvements in the 

accountability of authorizers. 

Specifically, this priority aims to 

support the dissemination of effective 

authorizing practices to all authorizers 

so they adopt practices that will 

strengthen oversight. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the language in paragraph (2) of Priority 

2—Improving Accountability precludes 

applicants that serve charter schools in 

one State, or one city, from the 

opportunity to apply for funds and to 

extend their reach nationally. The 

commenter noted that the CSP Grants 

for National Leadership Activities 

competition would exclude the best of 

local authorized public chartering 

agencies that authorize charter schools 

in only one State or city. 

Discussion: The purpose of Priority 

2—Improving Accountability is to 

ensure that applicants build authorizer 

capacity and disseminate successful 

practices within multiple regions of the 

United States. While this requirement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

would limit local authorized public 

chartering agencies from applying 

individually, eligible applicants may 

apply as a partnership or consortium, 

allowing them to pool their experiences, 

skills, and resources. An authorized 

public chartering agency that authorizes 

charter schools in only one State could 

propose a project to improve authorized 

public chartering agencies’ capacity at 

the regional level or national level. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add language to Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability that would 

require authorizers to develop and 

implement policies on how they will 

monitor charter applicants providing 

services to students with disabilities. 

Discussion: To the extent that the 

commenter is referring to authorizer 

monitoring of the academic performance 

of charter schools, we agree that it is 

important for authorizers to focus in 

particular on students with disabilities. 

In addition, upon further review, we 

think it is also important for authorizers 

to focus similarly on English learners 

and other students in need of 

specialized services. Accordingly, we 

revised Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability by adding language that 

requires CSP Grants for National 

Leadership Activities applicants to 

include metrics to assess educational 

equity for students with disabilities, 

English learners, and other students in 

need of specialized services in their 

descriptions of the types of data 

authorizers should use to monitor and 

oversee charter schools. In addition, it is 

important to note that under section 

612(a)(11) of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 

34 CFR 300.149(a)(2)(ii), the State 

educational agency, in carrying out its 

general supervisory responsibility, is 

required to ensure that all educational 

programs for students with disabilities 

administered in the State, including any 

other State agency or local agency, meet 

the educational standards of the State 

educational agency, including the 

requirements in the IDEA. Thus, under 

IDEA, the SEA has an overarching 

responsibility to ensure that all program 

requirements in the IDEA are met and 

to monitor implementation of those 

requirements by eligible entities, 

including charter schools that operate as 

LEAs that have established their 

eligibility under section 613 of the IDEA 

for Part B of the IDEA funds, and charter 

schools that are public schools of LEAs 

that receive Part B funds. 

Changes: We revised paragraphs 

(1)(ii) and (2)(ii) of Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability to ‘‘Monitor 

and oversee charter schools through 

measureable performance goals and 

multiple sources of regularly collected 

academic and operational performance 

data (using financial data, disaggregated 

student discipline data, and 

disaggregated student performance data, 

including metrics to assess educational 

equity for students with disabilities, 

English learners, and other students in 

need of specialized services).’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

we expand Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability to ensure the eligibility 

of projects proposed by charter support 

organizations that are designed to 

improve the capacity to develop and 

track measurable performance goals. 

The commenter stated that 

responsibility for the success of a 

charter school rests on the school and 

its governing organization, and that any 

priority for improved accountability 

must also include activities that focus 

on school-level accountability. 

Discussion: We recognize the 

importance of factors, such as 

governance and performance 

management, to charter operators and 

authorized public chartering agencies. 

However, Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability is designed to address 

accountability through authorized 

public chartering agencies. The types of 

activities suggested by the commenter 

would fall within the scope of Priority 

1—Improving Efficiency through 

Economies of Scale. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

Priority 2—Improving Accountability be 

a competitive preference priority 

because the commenter’s State does not 

address authorizer accountability. 

Discussion: The intent of Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability is to support 

projects that are designed to improve 

authorizer capacity. We think this 

priority will encourage authorizers to 

improve their practices, even if their 

State does not clearly address authorizer 

accountability. In addition, as stated 

elsewhere in this notice, this action is 

designed only to establish the priorities 

that we may choose to use in the CSP 

Grants for National Leadership 

Activities competitions in 2015 and 

future years. We do not designate 

whether a priority will be absolute, 

competitive, or invitational in this 

notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we should broaden the scope of 

Priority 2—Improving Accountability to 

clarify that successful applicants may 

work with non-authorizers that have 

influence over, and play a role in, 

improving authorizer quality. 

Discussion: Applicants may propose 

dissemination activities described in 

paragraphs (3) and (4) of Priority 2 that 

include organizations other than 

authorized public chartering agencies, 

such as SEAs or charter support 

organizations, so long as authorized 

public chartering agencies are the 

primary focus of those activities. While 

we understand the important role of 

non-authorizers in authorizer 

accountability, the intent of this priority 

is to build authorizer capacity. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the phrase ‘‘within a variety of 

communities’’ in Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability be clarified or removed, 

as it is unclear to the commenter 

whether ‘‘communities’’ means 

geographic communities or another type 

of community. 

Discussion: In this context, we intend 

‘‘within a variety of communities’’ to 

mean a variety of geographic 

communities, specifically communities 

at the regional level (as defined in this 

notice), or at the national level (as 

defined in this notice). Notably, we 

added definitions of ‘‘national level’’ 

and ‘‘regional level,’’ and these 

definitions include the ‘‘variety of 

communities’’ phrasing that the 

commenter referenced. Therefore, we 

deleted the phrase from the language of 

Priority 2 to avoid duplicative phrasing. 

Changes: We changed the text of 

Priority 2, paragraph (1) to ‘‘How the 

proposed project will improve, at the 

regional level (as defined in this notice) 

or the national level (as defined in this 

notice), authorized public chartering 

agencies’ capacity to . . . ’’ We also 

changed the text of Priority 2, paragraph 

(2) to ‘‘The applicant’s prior success in 

improving, at the regional level (as 

defined in this notice) or the national 

level (as defined in this notice), 

authorized public chartering agencies’ 

capacity to . . .’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability should clarify the goal of 

improving authorizer capacity in 

paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) by focusing 

on improving standards of approval, not 

the capacity to approve charter schools. 

Discussion: To clarify, the intent of 

paragraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) is improving 

standards of approval by authorized 

public chartering agencies. We think 

that ambitious standards for approving 

charter school applications and rigorous 

application review processes will 

ensure that authorizers approve only 

charter school applications that 

demonstrate the capacity to create and 

sustain high-quality charter schools (as 

defined in this notice). Furthermore, it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40653 

is not feasible to expect authorizers to 

approve only high-quality charter 

schools, as the definition includes a 

requirement that the school show 

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). We 

recognize that new charter schools 

would not be able to meet this 

requirement as they would not yet have 

evidence of strong academic results. 

Changes: We replaced ‘‘Approve only 

high-quality charter schools that meet 

the standards of a rigorous application 

process and review’’ in paragraphs (1)(i) 

and (2)(i) of Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability with ‘‘Approve only 

applications that demonstrate capacity 

to create and sustain high-quality 

charter schools (as defined in this 

notice) and meet the standards of a 

rigorous application process and 

review.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the language ’’maintain portfolios of 

high-quality charter schools by 

evaluating authorizer and portfolio 

performance and disseminating 

information on the performance of those 

portfolios’’ in proposed Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability was unclear 

and recommended it be removed. 

Discussion: Evaluating authorizer and 

portfolio performance will result in 

more high-quality charter schools being 

approved; however, for the reasons 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, we 

understand that it is practically 

infeasible to use the ‘‘high-quality 

charter school’’ definition proposed in 

the NPP for charter school applicants 

that have not yet begun educating 

students. As such, we agree with the 

commenter that clarification is needed 

and have edited the language of Priority 

2—Improving Accountability to provide 

that clarification. 

In addition, while not in response to 

public comment, upon further review of 

Priority 2—Improving Authorizer 

Accountability, we removed ‘‘and help 

improve the ability of other authorized 

public chartering agencies to produce 

similar results’’ from paragraph (2)(iv). 

Our intent in this section is for 

applicants to include information about 

their prior successes in evaluating 

authorizer and portfolio performance 

and disseminating information on that 

performance. We did not intend for 

applicants that are authorized public 

chartering agencies to be required to 

show how they have helped other 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

produce similar results, as the proposed 

language implied. 

Changes: We replaced ‘‘Maintain 

portfolios of high-quality charter 

schools by evaluating authorizer and 

portfolio performance and 

disseminating information on the 

performance of those portfolios’’ in 

Priority 2—Improving Accountability, 

paragraphs (1)(iv) and (2)(iv) with 

‘‘Evaluate authorizer and portfolio 

performance and disseminate 

information on that performance.’’ We 

also removed ‘‘and help improve the 

ability of other authorized public 

chartering agencies to produce similar 

results’’ from paragraph (2)(iv). 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

the Department encourage authorizers to 

employ data effectively by ensuring the 

data are available to and usable to 

relevant stakeholders, including parents 

and community members. The 

commenter also suggested that Priority 

2—Improving Accountability support 

charter school authorizers that include 

disaggregated student data and data on 

student growth in their performance 

management systems. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments about the effective use of 

data, including the use of disaggregated 

student data to promote authorizer 

accountability. We believe applicants 

could use the dissemination activities 

described in Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability paragraphs (3) and (4) to 

ensure that data are made available to 

multiple stakeholders, including parents 

and community members. As such, we 

decline to edit that portion of the 

priority language. However, we agree 

that disaggregated data are important, 

particularly in identifying achievement 

gaps and discipline disparities, and 

including student growth data in 

performance management systems will 

improve the ability of authorizers to 

monitor and oversee charter schools as 

well as to measure performance. As 

such, we revised the priority language to 

emphasize the use of performance data. 

Changes: In the introductory 

paragraph of Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability, we revised ‘‘monitor 

and oversee charter schools using data 

and measurable performance goals’’ to 

‘‘monitor and oversee charter schools 

using multiple sources of data, 

including disaggregated student data, 

and measurable performance goals.’’ In 

addition, in paragraphs (1)(ii) and (2)(ii), 

we revised the language ‘‘Monitor and 

oversee charter schools through the 

regular collection of data, including 

student performance and financial data, 

and measurable performance goals’’ to 

‘‘Monitor and oversee charter schools 

through measurable performance goals 

and multiple sources of regularly 

collected academic and operational 

performance data (using financial data, 

disaggregated student discipline data, 

and disaggregated student performance 

data, including metrics to assess 

educational equity for students with 

disabilities, English learners, and other 

students in need of specialized 

services).’’ In addition, upon further 

review, we revised the introductory 

paragraph of Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability by replacing 

‘‘communicate the performance of that 

portfolio’’ with ‘‘disseminate 

information on the performance of 

charter schools,’’ as we think this 

language more closely corresponds to 

paragraph (3) of Priority 2. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability could improve 

accountability and authorizer practices 

through: Collective voluntary 

accountability, where a self-monitoring 

network could exist within the public 

charter school community; 

experimentation with new approaches 

such as parental influence on school 

accountability; and building knowledge 

bases, where authorized public 

chartering agencies could provide 

assistance to other authorizers in 

implementing successful practices that 

improve the quality of schools they 

authorize. 

Discussion: The intended focus of 

Priority 2—Improving Accountability is 

on improving authorizer capacity, as we 

think effective authorizing and oversight 

influence charter school quality. While 

voluntary accountability, parental 

influence on accountability, and 

knowledge building and sharing could 

be components of improving 

accountability and authorizer practices, 

we think improving authorizer capacity, 

as described in Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability, would have the largest 

impact on improving accountability, 

and would, in turn, increase quality in 

the charter school sector. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a research and evaluation 

component be added to Priority 2— 

Improving Accountability to enhance 

national understanding of high-quality 

authorizing and how policy can best 

support it. The commenter noted that 

the proposed priority should also 

consider how local districts and 

authorizers managing a diverse portfolio 

of schools can improve their 

accountability frameworks for both the 

public charter and non-chartered public 

sectors. 

Discussion: In addition to meeting 

other requirements, successful 

applicants under this priority must 

improve authorizer capacity to evaluate 

authorizer and portfolio performance 

and disseminate that information to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

‘‘Charter Schools: Additional Federal Attention 

Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with 

Disabilities.’’ GAO–12–543: Published Jun 7, 2012. 

Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/600/591435.pdf. 2 Id. 3 Id. 

help improve the ability of other 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

produce similar results. While we think 

research and evaluation could greatly 

benefit authorizers, we decline to make 

a change. Provided that they meet all 

requirements under this priority, 

applicants’ research and evaluation 

activities would be allowable under this 

program. In addition, the selection 

criterion 34 CFR 75.210(h), Quality of 

the Project Evaluation, provides 

selection factors that encourage 

applicants to conduct rigorous 

evaluations of their projects, which 

could be incorporated in the selection 

criteria for a future competition under 

this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the activities under Priority 3— 

Students with Disabilities do not 

address the need of public charter 

schools to provide instruction for 

students with disabilities in the least 

restrictive environment (LRE), which is 

a major component of the IDEA. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that LRE is critical to the 

education of all children with 

disabilities in charter schools. Because 

under the IDEA, students with 

disabilities and their parents retain all 

rights under the IDEA, including the 

right to be educated in the LRE, we do 

not believe it is necessary for this 

priority to focus on the IDEA’s LRE 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

studies have shown that the lack of 

enrollment of students with disabilities 

in public charter schools is the result of 

policies and practices designed to 

minimize the enrollment of these 

students and not a capacity issue. The 

commenter further stated that 

‘‘strategies and tools’’ referenced in 

Priority 3—Students with Disabilities are 

not the same as the ‘‘practices’’ referred 

to in the recommendations from a recent 

report by the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO).1

Discussion: While we agree with the 

commenter that the enrollment of 

students with disabilities in public 

charter schools is an important issue, 

we find that studies on this topic have 

not identified a single reason for any 

disparity in enrollment that may occur 

in some schools and districts. The GAO 

report recommended that ‘‘the Secretary 

of Education take measures to help 

charter schools recognize practices that 

may affect enrollment of students with 

disabilities . . . ’’ We think that the 

‘‘strategies and tools’’ that applicants 

develop in response to this priority will 

help them identify and improve 

practices that may affect enrollment of 

students with disabilities and increase 

equitable access to students with 

disabilities in public charter schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

‘‘promising practices,’’ as used in 

Priority 3—Students with Disabilities, 

are instructional approaches that 

improve student achievement, not 

approaches that only increase students 

with disabilities’ access to schools to 

which they already have a legal right to 

attend. Furthermore, the commenter 

stated that an abundance of knowledge 

already exists on how to improve 

student achievement, and improving the 

achievement of students with 

disabilities in public charter schools 

does not differ significantly from 

improving their achievement in nonchartered public schools. 

Discussion: We disagree that 

‘‘promising practices’’ only refers to 

instructional approaches, and we 

consider practices that increase 

equitable access to public charter 

schools for students with disabilities 

and the schools’ capacity to enroll 

students with disabilities, as well as 

approaches that improve student 

achievement, student growth, high 

school graduation rates, and college 

enrollment rates for students with 

disabilities to be promising practices. 

While existing resources for 

improving the achievement of students 

with disabilities can benefit public 

charter schools and non-chartered 

public schools, charter schools need to 

be aware of, and have access to, such 

resources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that to better address any issues that 

may exist around the enrollment of 

students with disabilities in public 

charter schools, the activities should be 

more closely aligned with 

recommendations made in the GAO 

report on the enrollment of students 

with disabilities in charter schools.2

Discussion: The GAO report 

referenced above made the following 

recommendations: 

1. Update existing guidance to ensure 

that public charter schools have better 

information about their obligations 

related to the enrollment of students 

with disabilities; and 

2. Conduct additional fact finding and 

research to understand the factors 

affecting enrollment of students with 

disabilities in public charter schools 

and act upon that information, as 

appropriate. 

We are in the process of updating 

existing guidance on the rights of 

students with disabilities in charter 

schools and are conducting additional 

fact finding and research to understand 

the factors affecting enrollment of 

students with disabilities in public 

charter schools. Our response to the 

GAO report cited above includes 

reviewing and documenting State 

policies, guidance, and reports 

regarding enrollment of, and services to, 

students with disabilities in charter 

schools and includes compiling a set of 

case studies of charter schools with both 

high and low enrollment of students 

with disabilities; these activities are 

continuing. In the meantime, the CSP 

Grants for National Leadership 

Activities competition includes Priority 

3—Students with Disabilities to help 

address enrollment, access, and 

achievement of students with 

disabilities in charter schools. 

In addition, the Department’s 

response to the second recommendation 

in the GAO report stated that the CSP’s 

grant competitions ‘‘are likely to 

continue to include competitive and 

invitational priorities for applications 

that propose to improve achievement for 

students with disabilities.’’ The 

inclusion of Priority 3—Students with 

Disabilities in this notice of final 

priorities addresses that 

recommendation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 3—Students with 

Disabilities include a research 

component that would provide national 

leadership in discovering the nature of, 

and systematically identifying the 

solution to, the underrepresentation of 

students with disabilities in certain 

locations, as identified in the GAO 

report on the enrollment of students 

with disabilities in charter schools.3 The 

commenter also suggested the 

Department prioritize research on the 

outcomes of students with disabilities 

who attend charter schools. 

Discussion: The Department 

understands the importance of research 

and evaluation of issues around the 

enrollment of students with disabilities 

in charter schools, which may advance 

policies that support equitable access to 

charter schools for students with 

disabilities. While this priority does not 

specifically mention research 

components, applicants may propose 

activities focused on research and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40655 

evaluation. While not the primary intent 

of this program, those activities would 

be permitted, so long as the applicant 

meets all other requirements and 

submits an application that meets all 

parts of the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 3—Students with 

Disabilities mention stand-alone strict 

discipline academies. Specifically, the 

commenter mentions that these 

academies do not meet the open 

enrollment requirement. 

Discussion: To receive funding 

through the CSP, a charter school must 

meet all requirements outlined in the 

definition of a charter school in section 

5210 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). 

Therefore, to qualify as an eligible 

applicant under the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities 

competition, a charter school must meet 

all parts of the definition of a charter 

school in section 5210 of the ESEA. This 

includes section 5210(1)(G), which 

requires that a charter school comply 

with certain Federal civil rights laws, 

including section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Part B 

of the IDEA, and section 5210(1)(H), 

which requires that it is a school to 

which parents choose to send their 

children, and that admits students on 

the basis of a lottery, if more students 

apply for admission than can be 

accommodated. Further, although we 

are not familiar with the requirements 

for ‘‘strict discipline academies,’’ 

charter school discipline policies and 

procedures must comply with the 

requirements of section 504 and section 

615(k) of the IDEA and their 

implementing regulations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested a third activity for Priority 3— 

Students with Disabilities and Priority 

4—English Learners. Specifically, the 

commenters recommended developing 

cooperation and collaboration between a 

public charter school, a non-chartered 

public school, special education 

communities, and English learner 

advocacy communities be added to the 

priorities, as each sector would provide 

insightful development and promote 

dissemination of effective approaches to 

serving these students. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for Priority 3— 

Students with Disabilities and Priority 

4—English Learners. We agree with the 

commenters that promoting 

collaborative activities between a 

charter school, a non-chartered public 

school, key special education 

stakeholders, and key English learner 

stakeholders is important. After 

reviewing the comments, we also 

consider the suggested additions to be 

beneficial to both Priority 3—Students 

with Disabilities and Priority 4—English 

Learners. 

Changes: We added the following 

activity as paragraph (3) of Priority 3— 

Students with Disabilities: ‘‘Promoting 

collaborative activities between charter 

schools, non-chartered public schools, 

and key special education stakeholders 

designed to improve student 

achievement, including student growth, 

and attainment (e.g., high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment 

rates) for students with disabilities.’’ We 

also added the following corresponding 

activity as paragraph (3) of Priority 4— 

English Learners: ‘‘Promoting 

collaborative activities between charter 

schools, non-chartered public schools, 

and key English learner stakeholders 

designed to improve student 

achievement, including student growth, 

and attainment (e.g., high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment 

rates) for English learners.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

changing the wording of the ‘‘activities’’ 

section of Priority 3—Students with 

Disabilities to more appropriately reflect 

the legal obligations of public charter 

schools. The commenter suggested that 

projects designed to ensure equitable 

enrollment, recruitment, and 

opportunities in charter schools for 

students with disabilities would more 

accurately reflect the responsibility 

incumbent on public charter schools. 

Another commenter suggested that 

charter schools must be held 

accountable for ensuring access to all 

students and for providing meaningful 

teaching and instruction designed to 

improve educational outcomes for those 

students. The commenter felt that the 

language in the NPP did not include a 

focus on recruitment and serving 

students with disabilities. 

Discussion: We agree that public 

charter schools must provide equitable 

access to students with disabilities. In 

this context, we think equitable access 

includes equitable enrollment 

opportunities as well as capabilities of 

public charter schools to meet the needs 

of students with disabilities during 

recruitment and once enrolled. In 

addition, we place a similar emphasis in 

Priority 4—English Learners. 

Changes: We changed the language of 

Priority 3—Students with Disabilities 

and Priority 4—English Learners by 

replacing ‘‘to increase access’’ 

throughout with ‘‘to increase equitable 

access.’’ In Priority 3, we also changed 

‘‘increase charter schools’ capacity to 

enroll students with disabilities’’ in 

paragraphs (1) and (2) to ‘‘increase 

charter schools’ capacity to recruit, 

enroll, and serve students with 

disabilities.’’ Throughout Priority 4, we 

made corresponding edits to maintain 

consistency with Priority 3. Specifically, 

we replaced ‘‘increase charter schools’ 

capacity to enroll English learners’’ with 

‘‘increase charter schools’ capacity to 

recruit, enroll, and serve English 

learners . . .’’ 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: After additional review, 

we determined that Priority 3—Students 

with Disabilities and Priority 4—English 

Learners could be clarified by 

consistently referring to schools as 

‘‘charter schools,’’ where appropriate. In 

addition, we determined that, 

depending on the nature of the project, 

it may not always be appropriate for 

each project under Priority 3 to 

‘‘improve student achievement, student 

growth, high school graduation rates, 

and college enrollment rates for 

students with disabilities.’’ We edited 

paragraph (1) of Priority 3 to ‘‘improve 

student achievement, including student 

growth, and attainment (e.g., high 

school graduation rates, college 

enrollment rates) for students with 

disabilities’’ to allow more flexibility. 

Similarly, for Priority 4, we edited 

paragraph (1) to ‘‘improve student 

achievement, including student growth 

and English proficiency, and attainment 

(e.g., high school graduation rates, 

college enrollment rates) for English 

learners.’’ We made corresponding 

changes to paragraph (2) of both 

priorities for the same reason. Finally, 

we added ‘‘. . . of students with 

disabilities’’ in the introductory 

paragraph of Priority 3, to maintain a 

consistent structure with Priority 4. 

Changes: For both Priority 3— 

Students with Disabilities and Priority 

4—English Learners, we inserted the 

word ‘‘charter’’ before schools in three 

places. These changes do not alter the 

intended meaning; rather, we are adding 

the word ‘‘charter’’ to ensure clarity. In 

addition, in paragraph (1) of both 

priorities, we added the phrase ‘‘to 

recruit, enroll, and serve.’’ We also 

replaced ‘‘increase charter schools’ 

enrollment, as well as improve 

achievement . . .’’ with ‘‘increase 

charter schools’ enrollment of students 

with disabilities, as well as improve 

achievement . . .’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department follow the 

recommendations in the GAO report on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

’’Education: Education Needs to Further Examine 

Data Collection on English Language Learners in 

Charter Schools.’’ GAO–13–655R: Published Jul 17, 

2013. Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/660/

655930.pdf. 

English learners in charter schools 4 to 

examine why charter schools are unable 

to provide accurate enrollment numbers 

of specific student populations, 

especially English learner populations. 

The commenter noted the importance of 

educators gaining a better 

understanding of the nature of the 

problem at a national level, which will 

better position researchers and 

practitioners to address concerns of 

limited access to charter schools for 

English learners. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that a better understanding of charter 

school non-reporting or underenrollment of English learners should be 

addressed. In response to the GAO 

report’s finding that they were unable to 

compare English learners’ enrollment in 

charter schools to English learners 

enrollment in non-chartered public 

schools due to incomplete data, the 

Department continues to improve its 

data collection and has been conducting 

a systematic review and reconciliation 

of directory data across data sources. In 

addition, the CSP Grants for National 

Leadership Activities competition 

includes Priority 3—Students with 

Disabilities and Priority 4—English 

Learners to help address the issues of 

enrollment, access, and achievement of 

students with disabilities and English 

learners in charter schools. We do not 

explicitly include data collection in 

either priority because data collection 

activities may be eligible project 

activities under Priority 3 or Priority 4. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 5—Personalized, 

Technology-Enabled Learning should 

specifically exclude virtual schools from 

eligibility. 

Discussion: Virtual schools, provided 

they meet the eligibility requirements 

described in the Eligibility section, will 

not automatically be deemed ineligible. 

However, the intent of this priority is to 

support projects that incorporate 

learning models that blend traditional, 

classroom-based teaching and learning 

with virtual, online, or digital delivery 

of personalized instructional content, 

and which are national in scope. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department expand each 

priority to ensure that students with 

disabilities are specifically mentioned 

as examples of the students who may 

require personalized and technologybased supports and services. The 

commenter noted that, in particular, 

Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning will be most effective 

if it builds on previous work funded by 

the Department that provided training to 

charter school authorizers and operators 

focused on serving students with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: Activities that focus on 

students with disabilities may be 

included under any priority, and 

activities that include personalized and 

technology-based services would be 

eligible under Priority 5—Personalized 

Technology-Enabled Learning. We agree 

that students with disabilities can 

benefit from personalized learning, and 

Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning provides that such 

projects should be designed to support 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice), which includes students with 

disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

the Department clarify the types of 

activities that it considers essential and 

that would be supported under Priority 

5—Personalized Technology-Enabled 

Learning; specifically, the commenter 

suggested highlighting blended learning 

as a model supported under this 

priority. Similarly, another commenter 

provided specific examples of the types 

of activities that should be supported 

under this priority. A third commenter 

suggested that the Department ensure 

Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning focus on the 

development of education technology 

and online platforms, collaborative 

practices, and instructional models for 

dissemination, in addition to research 

into blended learning implementation. 

Discussion: The CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities 

competition is designed to encourage 

innovative solutions to address a 

number of public educational needs 

across the Nation. In order to support 

innovation in technology-enabled 

instructional models, tools, and 

supports, we do not want to restrict 

applicants to specific types of activities 

and have written this priority to allow 

applicants flexibility in the projects they 

propose. In addition, we note that 

applicants proposing projects with a 

focus on education technology and 

online platforms, collaborative 

practices, and instructional models for 

dissemination may be eligible under 

Priority 1—Increasing Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale, in addition 

to Priority 5. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: After additional review, 

we determined that the language of 

Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning should remain 

consistent with an ultimate goal of 

increasing overall student learning, 

rather than simply providing 

instruction. The technology-enabled 

instructional models, tools, and 

supports referenced in this priority are 

intended to personalize students’ 

learning. The phrase ‘‘personalize 

instruction’’ that was included in the 

proposed priority implies an emphasis 

on the process, (i.e., instruction), rather 

than on the outcome (i.e., learning). 

Changes: We removed the phrase 

‘‘personalize instruction’’ from Priority 

5—Personalized Technology-Enabled 

Learning and revised the priority 

language to say ‘‘supports that 

personalize learning.’’ 

Definitions 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We added the definitions 

for ‘‘national level’’ and ‘‘regional 

level,’’ as these terms are now 

referenced within other parts of this 

notice. These definitions are used in 

other Department grant competitions 

and the definitions come from 34 CFR 

77.1. 

Changes: The definitions for ‘‘national 

level’’ and ‘‘regional level’’ have been 

added. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

the Department revise the definition of 

‘‘significant compliance issues’’ to 

accommodate current practice by 

rigorous authorizers that are unlikely to 

revoke a charter for a single or limited 

event. The commenter further explained 

that the proposed definition reflected a 

zero-tolerance approach that is 

inappropriate, as it takes a pattern of 

misbehavior, or individual failures that 

are more egregious, to lead an 

authorized public chartering agency to 

revoke a school’s charter. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the need for further clarification on 

the issue of compliance with Federal 

and State law, and authorizer policy. 

Changes: We revised the definition of 

‘‘significant compliance issue’’ to clarify 

that these are issues that, if not 

addressed or are representative of a 

pattern of misconduct or noncompliance, could lead to the 

revocation of a school’s charter. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

altering the definition of ‘‘charter school 

national level.’’ One commenter 

suggested changing the proposed 

definition to clarify that any public or 

private nonprofit organization with a 

mission that explicitly includes 

supporting charter schools is eligible for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40657 

this competition, including those that 

are able to support a wide variety of 

charter schools from both urban and 

rural areas. Another commenter noted 

that the definition places an undue 

burden on an applicant to disseminate 

urban-focused best practices to agencies, 

organizations, or groups that must serve 

rural agencies. 

Discussion: The definition of ‘‘charter 

school national level’’ is not designed to 

limit eligible organizations, but rather to 

define a level at which activities take 

place. The Department believes that a 

broad, national scope for project 

activities and for dissemination is 

necessary to meet the goals of the 

program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

requested that the definition of ‘‘highquality charter school’’ be revised. One 

commenter suggested the Department 

make the definition consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘highly mobile students,’’ 

with particular attention given to how 

highly mobile students and related data 

will be counted in accountability 

assessments across State lines. Two 

other commenters noted that the 

proposed definition for high-quality 

charter school did not take into account 

new schools with no achievement data 

and would be applied comprehensively, 

instead of considering additional factors 

that make up high-quality schools. In 

addition, one of those commenters 

stated that the proposed definition did 

not take into account the role of 

authorizers and accountability systems 

within applicable States. 

Discussion: The definition of ‘‘highquality charter school’’ is designed to 

emphasize the importance of a school’s 

evidence of strong academic 

performance for the past three years, or 

over the life of the school, if the school 

has been open for fewer than three 

years, and we decline to make the 

definition consistent with that of highly 

mobile students, which is not used in 

this notice. We agree that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘high-quality charter 

school’’ should be strengthened to take 

into account the role of authorizers and 

accountability systems and have added 

paragraph (a)(4), which focuses on the 

results of a performance framework 

established by the State or authorized 

public chartering agency. In addition, 

we made a number of clarifying edits to 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3). These are 

not intended to change the meaning of 

the priority but only to clarify our 

intent. As described elsewhere in this 

document, we also edited parts of 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale and Priority 

2—Improving Accountability so 

authorizers are not held accountable for 

authorizing only high-quality charter 

schools or only having high-quality 

charter schools in their portfolios of 

schools. In addition, the insertion of 

‘‘and equitable and nondiscriminatory 

treatment for students’’ in paragraph 

(a)(5) of the high-quality charter school 

definition is meant to ensure that 

compliance extends to the civil rights of 

students. Upon further review, we 

edited paragraph (a)(1) of the same 

definition to include high school 

graduation rates and college and other 

postsecondary enrollment rates. 

Paragraph (a)(3) has been similarly 

edited in that the list of achieved results 

include student attendance, retention 

rates, and postsecondary attendance and 

persistence rates. 

Changes: We added the clarifying 

phrases ‘‘(including, if applicable, high 

school graduation rates and college and 

other postsecondary enrollment rates)’’ 

and ‘‘served by the charter school’’ in 

paragraph (a)(1). In paragraph (a)(3), we 

added ‘‘student attendance and 

retention rates,’’ ‘‘postsecondary 

attendance and persistence rates,’’ and 

‘‘if applicable and available’’ in 

paragraph (a)(3). We also removed the 

word ‘‘achieved’’ before the word 

‘‘results’’ in paragraph (a)(3), as it is 

redundant. We added paragraph (a)(4): 

‘‘Positive results on a performance 

framework established by the State or 

authorized public chartering agency for 

purposes of evaluating charter school 

quality’’ and renumbered proposed 

paragraph (a)(4) to be paragraph (a)(5). 

In the final paragraph (a)(5), we added 

‘‘and equitable and nondiscriminatory 

treatment for students’’ at the end of the 

paragraph. We also added a new 

paragraph (b) to the definition to clarify 

that an applicant can use its State’s 

definition of high-quality charter school, 

provided that the State’s definition is at 

least as rigorous as the definition 

included in this notice. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review of 

the definition of ‘‘high-quality charter 

school,’’ we determined that the third 

paragraph of this definition, which has 

been used in multiple Department 

competitions and shows how achieved 

results compare to results for similar 

lolstudents in the State, was missing. 

Therefore, we included language to 

ensure the element is discussed. 

Changes: In paragraph (a)(3) of the 

definition for ‘‘high-quality charter 

school,’’ we inserted ‘‘that are above the 

average academic achievement results 

for such students in the State.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the definition of ‘‘student 

achievement’’ include other universally 

available measures of student learning 

that are tied to teacher evaluations, 

which currently are not addressed in the 

definition. 

Discussion: The definition for 

‘‘student achievement’’ requires that any 

measures used be comparable across 

schools, which we think is a key 

component of this definition. As noted 

elsewhere in this notice, it is important 

that the CSP Grants for National 

Leadership Activities competition use 

definitions consistent with other 

Department programs. Because of the 

variation in measures that tie student 

learning to teacher evaluations, and 

because proposed projects will be 

national in scope, we do not think that 

applicants would be able to compare 

increases in student achievement across 

districts and States if teacher evaluation 

measures were to be incorporated into 

this definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the proposed definition of ‘‘highneed students’’ should be reviewed for 

further clarification. One commenter 

suggested adding ‘‘first generation 

college-bound students’’ to the list of 

high-need student indicators. Another 

commenter noted that this definition 

should be reviewed to ensure the focus 

is on charter schools and not higher 

education. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that it is important to 

ensure that each definition used in the 

CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities competition is appropriate to 

the CSP’s mission. The definition for 

high-need students does not specifically 

mention charter schools or nonchartered public schools; however, any 

student at risk of educational failure 

would be included under the definition, 

regardless of the school that student 

attends. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department develop definitions 

for ‘‘rural public charter schools’’ and 

‘‘Rural State.’’ 

Discussion: Rural public charter 

schools and rural State are not terms 

that are used in these priorities, so it is 

unclear how those definitions would be 

used. Because the commenter did not 

provide context for this suggestion, we 

are unable to provide additional 

clarification. Applicants that want to 

demonstrate their commitment to 

serving rural areas may use elements of 

the definition of ‘‘rural local educational 

agency,’’ which is defined by other 

programs at the Department as an LEA 

that is eligible under the Small Rural 

School Achievement program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School program 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

authorized under Title VI, Part B of the 

ESEA. See www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/

local/reap.html. The elements of the 

definition can be used by applicants to 

demonstrate their commitment to 

serving rural areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

modifying the definition of ‘‘community 

of practice’’ to include public and 

private nonprofit organizations with a 

mission that explicitly includes 

supporting charter schools to better 

promote a community of practice within 

and across State lines. 

Discussion: We currently include the 

term ‘‘stakeholders’’ in the definition, 

which provides a wider range of options 

than the suggested change. Because we 

do not want to unnecessarily limit 

participation in the community of 

practice (as defined in this notice), we 

decline to revise the term used in the 

definition in a manner that would limit 

the types of stakeholders included in 

the communities of practice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the definition for ‘‘logic model’’ was 

different than the definition currently 

used in 34 CFR 77.1. 

Discussion: As noted elsewhere in 

this notice, we agree that it is important 

the CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities competition use definitions 

consistent with other Department 

programs. As such, we will use the same 

definition for logic model as included in 

34 CFR 77.1. 

Changes: We replaced the term 

‘‘charter school logic model’’ with 

‘‘logic model’’ from 34 CFR 77.1. 

Eligibility 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

the language in the Eligibility section be 

reviewed. Specifically, the commenter 

felt that there is no explicit language 

permitting an applicant to apply as an 

individual nonprofit organization, 

although that may be implied. The 

commenter suggested we change 

‘‘Eligible applicants may apply as a 

group or consortium’’ to ‘‘Eligible 

applicants may apply as an individual 

organization as defined above or as a 

partnership or consortium.’’ A second 

commenter asked whether an individual 

charter school operator could be an 

eligible applicant. 

Discussion: Eligible applicants 

include public and private nonprofit 

organizations with a mission that 

explicitly supports operating, 

supporting, or managing charter 

schools, which makes individual 

organizations eligible. The intent of this 

grant competition is to support projects 

of national significance and scope; 

however, we agree that clarification is 

needed on whether individual charter 

schools are eligible. An individual 

charter school that meets all eligibility 

requirements could apply under this 

competition. We also want to clarify 

that eligible applicants may be 

organizations whose missions involve 

operating, supporting, and managing 

charter schools—not just supporting 

charter schools. Upon further review of 

the Eligibility section, we determined 

that additional clarity was needed to 

reflect that CMOs are eligible entities. In 

addition, upon further review, we added 

a requirement that, to the extent that 

eligible applicants that are partnerships 

or consortia include charter schools, the 

lead applicant, each charter school 

operated or managed by the lead 

applicant and all partnership or 

consortium members, including, in the 

case of a CMO applicant, all charter 

schools managed by the CMO, must 

meet the definition of high-quality 

charter school (as defined in this 

notice). We made this change to clarify 

that CMO applicants are eligible and 

that all charter schools in a partnership 

or consortium must meet the definition 

of high-quality charter school. We also 

added a requirement that eligible 

applicants that are charter schools may 

not have any significant compliance 

issues (as defined in this notice) to 

ensure that these applicants do not have 

any violations that did, will, or could 

lead to the revocation of the school’s 

charter. 

Changes: We edited the Eligibility 

section to include ‘‘public and private 

nonprofit entities with a mission that 

explicitly includes operating, 

supporting, or managing charter 

schools.’’ In addition, we added the 

following language to the Eligibility 

section: ‘‘Eligible applicants that are 

charter schools may not have any 

significant compliance issues (as 

defined in this notice), including in the 

areas of student safety, financial 

management, civil rights, and statutory 

or regulatory compliance. In addition, to 

the extent that eligible applicants that 

are partnerships or consortia include 

charter schools, the lead applicant, each 

charter school operated or managed by 

the lead applicant, and all partnership 

or consortium members, including, in 

the case of a CMO applicant, all charter 

schools managed by the CMO, must 

meet the definition of high-quality 

charter school (as defined in this 

notice).’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

changing the regulations that require 

eligible public and private nonprofit 

organizations to have a mission that 

explicitly includes supporting charter 

schools so that all organizations and 

communities affected by such policies 

may apply whether or not their missions 

provide explicit references to 

supporting charter schools. The 

commenter recommended that 

community-based organizations and 

national intermediaries that represent 

the communities served by charter 

schools be considered as eligible 

entities. 

Discussion: The Eligibility section 

does not preclude community-based 

organizations and national 

intermediaries from applying, provided 

they meet all eligibility requirements, 

including that their organizational 

missions explicitly include supporting 

charter schools. Because funds for the 

CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities competition are appropriated 

for charter schools, we seek to ensure 

that organizations supported by these 

funds are focused on supporting charter 

schools. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following five priorities 

for the CSP Grants for National 

Leadership Activities competition. We 

may apply one or more of these 

priorities in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Priority 1—Improving Efficiency 

through Economies of Scale 

This priority is for projects of national 

significance and scope that promote 

shared systems for acquiring goods or 

services to achieve efficiencies in the 

use of time, staff, money, services for 

special populations, or other resources 

for the purpose of creating, supporting, 

and sustaining high-quality charter 

schools (as defined in this notice). 

An applicant addressing this priority 

must apply as part of an existing or 

proposed partnership or consortium that 

includes two or more high-quality 

charter schools, as defined in this 

notice, and must include detailed 

descriptions (including supporting 

documentation) of the following: 

(1) The proposed project activities of 

the partnership or consortium and how 

and to what extent the activities will 

achieve efficiencies in the use of time, 

staff, money, services for special 

populations, or other resources related 

to operating charter schools; 

(2) The members or proposed 

members of the partnership or 

consortium, how the composition of this 

partnership or consortium contributes to 

achieving efficiencies, and the specific 

activities each member or proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40659 

member will implement. Applicants 

must demonstrate that members of the 

existing or proposed partnership or 

consortium are not affiliated exclusively 

with a common network (e.g., a charter 

management organization); 

(3) How the proposed project 

activities will help create charter 

schools that demonstrate the capacity to 

become high-quality charter schools, 

support new charter schools to become 

high-quality charter schools, and sustain 

charter schools that are high-quality; 

(4) How information about the 

proposed project activities will be 

disseminated primarily to charter 

schools as the chief stakeholder group, 

and secondarily to other stakeholders, 

such as charter school support 

organizations, LEAs, and authorized 

public chartering agencies, as 

appropriate, at the charter school 

national level (as defined in this notice); 

(5) How the dissemination strategy 

will include assembling a community of 

practice (as defined in this notice) for 

the stakeholder group(s) served; and 

(6) The national significance of the 

proposed project. 

Priority 2—Improving Accountability 

This priority is for projects of national 

significance and scope that are designed 

to improve authorized public chartering 

agencies’ capacity to conduct rigorous 

application reviews; monitor and 

oversee charter schools using multiple 

sources of data, including disaggregated 

student data, and measurable 

performance goals; close 

underperforming schools; replicate and 

expand high-performing schools; 

maintain a portfolio of high-quality 

charter schools; and evaluate and 

disseminate information on the 

performance of charter schools. 

Applicants addressing this priority 

must provide detailed descriptions 

(including supporting documentation) 

of the following: 

(1) How the proposed project will 

improve, at the regional level (as 

defined in this notice) or the national 

level (as defined in this notice), 

authorized public chartering agencies’ 

capacity to: 

i. Approve only applications that 

demonstrate capacity to create and 

sustain high-quality charter schools (as 

defined in this notice) and meet the 

standards of a rigorous application 

process and review; 

ii. Monitor and oversee charter 

schools through measurable 

performance goals and multiple sources 

of regularly collected academic and 

operational performance data (using 

financial data, disaggregated student 

discipline data, and disaggregated 

student performance data, including 

metrics to assess educational equity for 

students with disabilities, English 

learners, and other students in need of 

specialized services); 

iii. Identify schools eligible for 

renewal and those that should be 

closed, through clear renewal and 

revocation criteria; and 

iv. Evaluate authorizer and portfolio 

performance and disseminate 

information on that performance; 

(2) The applicant’s prior success in 

improving, at the regional level (as 

defined in this notice) or the national 

level (as defined in this notice), 

authorized public chartering agencies’ 

capacity to: 

i. Approve only applications that 

demonstrate the capacity to create and 

sustain high-quality charter schools (as 

defined in this notice) and meet the 

standards of a rigorous application 

process and review; 

ii. Monitor and oversee charter 

schools through measurable 

performance goals and multiple sources 

of regularly collected academic and 

operational performance data (using 

financial data, disaggregated student 

discipline data, and disaggregated 

student performance data, including 

metrics to assess educational equity for 

students with disabilities, English 

learners, and other students in need of 

specialized services); 

iii. Identify schools eligible for 

renewal and those that should be 

closed, through clear renewal and 

revocation criteria; and 

iv. Evaluate authorizer and portfolio 

performance and disseminate 

information on that performance; 

(3) How dissemination activities focus 

on authorized public chartering 

agencies as the primary stakeholder 

group, and secondarily on other 

stakeholders, such as charter school 

support organizations or charter 

schools, as appropriate, at the charter 

school national level (as defined in this 

notice); 

(4) How the dissemination strategy 

will include assembling a community of 

practice (as defined in this notice) for 

the stakeholder group(s) served; and 

(5) The national significance of the 

proposed project. 

Priority 3—Students With Disabilities 

This priority is for projects of national 

significance and scope that are designed 

to increase equitable access to charter 

schools for students with disabilities 

and increase charter schools’ enrollment 

of students with disabilities, as well as 

improve achievement (including 

student achievement and student 

growth) and attainment (including high 

school graduation rates and college 

enrollment rates) for students with 

disabilities in charter schools, through 

one or more of the following activities: 

(1) Developing strategies and tools to 

increase equitable access to charter 

schools for students with disabilities 

and increase charter schools’ capacity to 

recruit, enroll, and serve students with 

disabilities, and improve student 

achievement, including student growth, 

and attainment (e.g., high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment 

rates) for students with disabilities. 

(2) Disseminating promising practices 

for increasing equitable access to charter 

schools for students with disabilities; 

increasing charter schools’ capacity to 

recruit, enroll, and serve students with 

disabilities; and improving student 

achievement, including student growth, 

and attainment (e.g., high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment 

rates) for students with disabilities. 

(3) Promoting collaborative activities 

between charter schools, non-chartered 

public schools, and key special 

education stakeholders designed to 

improve student achievement, including 

student growth, and attainment (e.g., 

high school graduation rates, college 

enrollment rates) for students with 

disabilities. 

Priority 4—English Learners 

This priority is for projects of national 

significance and scope that are designed 

to increase equitable access to charter 

schools for English learners and 

increase charter schools’ enrollment of 

English learners, as well as improve 

academic achievement (including 

student achievement and student 

growth) and attainment (including 

English proficiency, high school 

graduation rates, and college enrollment 

rates) for English learners, through one 

or more of the following activities: 

(1) Developing strategies and tools to 

increase equitable access to charter 

schools for English learners; increase 

charter schools’ capacity to recruit, 

enroll, and serve English learners; and 

improve student achievement, including 

student growth and English proficiency, 

and attainment (e.g., high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment 

rates) for English learners. 

(2) Disseminating promising practices 

for increasing equitable access to charter 

schools for English learners; increasing 

charter schools’ capacity to recruit, 

enroll, and serve English learners; and 

improving student achievement, 

including student growth and English 

proficiency, and attainment (e.g., high 

school graduation rates, college 

enrollment rates) for English learners. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Promoting collaborative activities 

between charter schools, non-chartered 

public schools, and key English learner 

stakeholders designed to improve 

student achievement, including student 

growth and English proficiency, and 

attainment (e.g., high school graduation 

rates, college enrollment rates) for 

English learners. 

Priority 5—Personalized TechnologyEnabled Learning 

This priority is for projects of national 

significance and scope that are designed 

to improve achievement and attainment 

outcomes for high-need students (as 

defined in this notice) through the 

development and implementation in 

charter schools of technology-enabled 

instructional models, tools, and 

supports that personalize learning. 

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)). 

Final Requirements 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following program 

requirements for the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities 

competitions. We may apply one or 

more of these requirements in any year 

in which this program is in effect. By 

requiring that applicants provide a logic 

model supporting their projects and 

restricting eligibility for grants to 

specific types of entities, the 

Department will ensure that grantees 

have the preparation and experience to 

be successful with a CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities grant. 

Application Requirements 

(a) Logic Model: An applicant for a 

CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities grant must provide a logic 

model (as defined in this notice) 

supporting its project. 

(b) Eligibility: Eligible applicants 

include (1) State educational agencies 

(SEAs) in States with a State statute 

specifically authorizing the 

establishment of charter schools; (2) 

authorized public chartering agencies; 

(3) public and private nonprofit 

organizations with a mission that 

explicitly includes operating, 

supporting, or managing charter 

schools; and (4) public and private 

nonprofit organizations in partnership 

with an SEA, authorized public 

chartering agency, or a public or private 

nonprofit organization with a mission 

that explicitly includes supporting 

charter schools. Eligible applicants may 

apply as a partnership or consortium 

and, if so applying, must comply with 

the requirements for group applications 

set forth in 34 CFR 75.127–75.129. 

Eligible applicants that are charter 

schools may not have any significant 

compliance issues (as defined in this 

notice), including in the areas of student 

safety, financial management, civil 

rights, and statutory or regulatory 

compliance. In addition, to the extent 

that eligible applicants that are 

partnerships or consortia include 

charter schools, the lead applicant, each 

charter school operated or managed by 

the lead applicant, and all partnership 

or consortium members, including, in 

the case of a CMO applicant, all charter 

schools managed by the CMO, must 

meet the definition of high-quality 

charter school (as defined in this 

notice). 

Final Definitions 

In addition to the definitions 

otherwise included in section 5210 of 

the ESEA, which includes the definition 

of ‘‘charter school,’’ and 34 CFR 77.1, 

we are establishing the following 

definitions for the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities 

competition. We may apply one or more 

of these definitions in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

Charter school national level means, 

with respect to an applicant’s 

dissemination strategy, that the strategy 

covers a wide variety of charter schools, 

authorized public chartering agencies, 

charter support organizations, and other 

stakeholder groups within multiple 

States across the country, including 

rural and urban areas. 

Community of practice means a group 

of stakeholders that interacts regularly 

to solve a persistent problem or to 

improve practice in an area that is 

important to them and the success of the 

grant project. 

Graduation rate means a four-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and 

may also include an extended-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if 

the State in which the proposed project 

is implemented has been approved by 

the Secretary to use such a rate under 

Title I of the ESEA. 

High-need students means children 

and students at risk of educational 

failure, such as children and students 

who are living in poverty, who are 

English Learners, who are far below 

grade level or who are not on track to 

becoming college- or career-ready by 

graduation, who have left school or 

college before receiving, respectively, a 

regular high school diploma or a college 

degree or certificate, who are at risk of 

not graduating with a diploma on time, 

who are homeless, who are in foster 

care, who are pregnant or parenting 

teenagers, who have been incarcerated, 

who are new immigrants, who are 

migrant, or who have disabilities. 

High-quality charter school means— 

(a) A 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 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 the 

subgroups of students described in 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) 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 

(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) 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 

attendance rates, and college and other 

postsecondary persistence rates) for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 40661 

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) Positive 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 

(as defined in this notice), particularly 

in the areas of student safety, financial 

management, and equitable and 

nondiscriminatory treatment for 

students; or 

(b) A high-quality charter school as 

defined by the State, provided that the 

State’s definition is at least as rigorous 

as paragraph (a). 

Logic model (also referred to as theory 

of action), as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c), 

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. 

National level, as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c), describes the level of scope or 

effectiveness of a process, product, 

strategy, or practice that is able to be 

effective in a wide variety of 

communities, including rural and urban 

areas, as well as with different groups 

(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial 

and ethnic groups, migrant populations, 

individuals with disabilities, English 

learners, and individuals of each 

gender). 

Regional level, as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c), describes the level of scope or 

effectiveness of a process, product, 

strategy, or practice that is able to serve 

a variety of communities within a State 

or multiple States, including rural and 

urban areas, as well as with different 

groups (e.g., economically 

disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, 

migrant populations, individuals with 

disabilities, English learners, and 

individuals of each gender). For an LEAbased project to be considered a 

regional-level project, a process, 

product, strategy, or practice must serve 

students in more than one LEA, unless 

the process, product, strategy, or 

practice is implemented in a State in 

which the State educational agency is 

the sole educational agency for all 

schools. 

Relevant outcome, as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c), means the student 

outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if 

not related to students) the proposed 

process, product, strategy, or practice is 

designed to improve; consistent with 

the specific goals of a program. 

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. 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects— 

(1) A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under the ESEA; and, as 

appropriate, 

(2) Other measures of student 

learning, such as those described in 

paragraph (b) of this definition, 

provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student scores 

on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; 

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

schools. 

Student growth means the change in 

achievement data for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. Growth may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Final priorities, requirements, and 

definitions 

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, and definitions 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 final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

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 

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.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions only on a 

reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that 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 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

does not require you to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

The collection of information is 

approved under OMB control number 

1855–0026. 

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 either of the program contact 

persons 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 

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: July 9, 2014. 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16462 Filed 7–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0715, FRL–9913–28– 

Region–10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, 

review their State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to ensure that it meets the 

infrastructure requirements necessary to 

implement the new or revised standard. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) finds that the Idaho SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

for the NAAQS promulgated for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 

1997 and October 17, 2006, and for 

ozone on March 12, 2008. The EPA also 

finds that the Idaho SIP meets the 

interstate transport requirements of the 

CAA related to prevention of significant 

deterioration and visibility for the 2006 

PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2011–0715. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which 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 form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at: (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comment 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On September 15, 2008, June 28, 

2010, and August 10, 2011, Idaho made 

submissions to the EPA demonstrating 

that the Idaho SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. On March 26, 2014, we 

proposed action on these submissions 

(79 FR 16711). On April 15, 2014, we 

made a correction to our proposal 

because we supplied an incorrect docket 

number in our proposed action (79 FR 

21179). However, any commenter 

wishing to submit comments did not 

need to resubmit them, because we 

routed the comments to the correct 

docket. 

An explanation of the CAA 

requirements and implementing 

regulations that are met by these SIP 

submissions, a detailed explanation of 

the submissions, and the EPA’s reasons 

for the proposed action were provided 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking on 

March 26, 2014, and will not be restated 

here (79 FR 16711). The public 

comment period for our proposed action 

ended on April 25, 2014, and we 

received one comment. 

II. Response to Comment 

Comment: We received the following 

anonymous comment through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site: ‘‘When 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES