Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35571 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2018–0370/Airspace 

Docket No. 18–AGL–11.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

All communications received before 

the specified closing date for comments 

will be considered before taking action 

on the proposed rule. The proposal 

contained in this notice may be changed 

in light of the comments received. A 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerned with this rulemaking will be 

filed in the docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s web page at http://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see the 

ADDRESSES section for the address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Air Traffic 

Organization, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, 10101 

Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document proposes to amend 

FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 3, 2017, and effective 

September 15, 2017. FAA Order 

7400.11B is publicly available as listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class 

E airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at Wayne County 

Airport, Wooster, OH, by removing the 

extension to the east associated with the 

Smith non-directional radio beacon. The 

geographic coordinates of the airport 

would also be updated to coincide with 

the FAA’s aeronautical database. 

Exclusionary language would be 

removed as it is no longer required. 

Also, the name of the city associated 

with the airport in the airspace 

description would be removed to 

comply with a change to FAA Order 

7400.2L, Procedures for Handling 

Airspace Matters. 

This action is necessary due to an 

airspace review caused by the 

decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR 

as part of the VOR MON Program. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, 

and effective September 15, 2017, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 3, 2017, and 

effective September 15, 2017, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

AGL OH E5 Wooster, OH [Amended] 

Wayne County Airport, OH 

(Lat. 40°52′29′′ N, long. 81°53′18′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of Wayne County Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 16, 

2018. 

Walter Tweedy, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16012 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2018–OII–0062] 

RIN 1855–AA14 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Expanding Opportunity Through 

Quality Charter Schools Program; 

Grants to Charter Management 

Organizations for the Replication and 

Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for Grants to Charter 

Management Organizations for the 

Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools (CMO grants) 

under the Expanding Opportunity 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35572 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1Throughout this document, terms for which we 

are proposing definitions are denoted by initial 

capitals. 

Through Quality Charter Schools 

Program (CSP), Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 

84.282M. The Acting Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement may use one or more of 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2019 

and later years. We take this action to 

support the replication and expansion 

of high-quality charter schools by 

charter management organizations 

(CMOs) throughout the Nation, 

particularly those that serve 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students,1

such as students who are Individuals 

from Low-income Families, and 

students who traditionally have been 

underserved by charter schools, such as 

students who are Indians and students 

in Rural Communities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before August 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Help.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to Allison 

Holte, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 

5W106, Washington, DC 20202–5970. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Holte, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5W106, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Telephone: (202) 205–7726. 

Email: charterschools@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary 

for Innovation and Improvement 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

CMO grants. The Acting Assistant 

Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement may use one or more of 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

future competitions, following 

publication of a notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in the Federal Register. We take 

this action in order to support the 

effective and efficient use of CSP funds 

in the replication and expansion of 

high-quality charter schools throughout 

the Nation, particularly those that serve 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 

such as students who are Individuals 

from Low-income Families, and 

students who traditionally have been 

underserved by charter schools, such as 

students who are Indians and students 

in Rural Communities. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: The Acting 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement proposes 

this regulatory action to achieve two 

main goals. 

First, we seek to continue to use funds 

under this program to support highquality applications from highly 

qualified applicants. To that end, this 

document includes proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria that would encourage or require 

applicants to describe, for example: Past 

successes working with Academically 

Poor-performing Public Schools; 

experience operating or managing 

multiple charter schools; plans to 

expand their reach into new and diverse 

communities; logical connections 

between their proposed projects and 

intended outcomes for the students they 

propose to serve; and plans to evaluate 

the extent to which their proposed 

projects, if funded, yield intended 

outcomes. 

Second, these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are designed to increase the 

likelihood that CMO grants support 

expanded high-quality educational 

opportunities for Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students, including 

students who are Individuals from Lowincome Families, children with 

disabilities, and English learners, as 

well as students who traditionally have 

been underserved by charter schools, 

such as students who are Indians and 

students in Rural Communities. 

Specifically, we propose priorities for 

applicants that would: Replicate or 

expand high-quality charter schools 

with an intentional focus on recruiting 

students from racially and 

socioeconomically diverse backgrounds, 

and maintaining racially and socially 

diverse student bodies; demonstrate that 

a meaningful proportion of the students 

served by the applicant are Individuals 

from Low-income Families; and 

replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools that serve high school students, 

students in Rural Communities, or 

students who are Indians. Further, we 

propose requirements for CMO 

applicants to describe how the schools 

they intend to replicate or expand 

would recruit and enroll Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students and support 

such students in mastering State 

academic standards. 

In addition to the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we include in an Appendix the 

priorities, key requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria from the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), and 

Federal regulations that are relevant to 

the CMO program and to the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. The priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in the Appendix are included 

for reference. 

Costs and Benefits: The Department 

believes that the benefits of this 

regulatory action outweigh any 

associated costs, which we believe 

would be minimal. While this action 

would impose cost-bearing 

requirements on participating CMOs, we 

expect that CMO applicants would 

include requests for funds to cover such 

costs in their proposed project budgets. 

We believe this regulatory action would 

strengthen accountability for the use of 

Federal funds by helping to ensure that 

the Department awards CSP grants to 

CMOs that are most capable of 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools available to our Nation’s 

students. Please refer to the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis in this document for a 

more detailed discussion of costs and 

benefits. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. To 

ensure that your comments have 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35573 

2Hurlburt, S., Therriault, S.B., and Le Floch, K.C. 

(2012). School Improvement Grants: Analyses of 

State Applications and Eligible and Awarded 

Schools (NCEE 2012–4060). Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 

overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

this program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4W228, Washington, DC, between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, Monday through 

Friday of each week except Federal 

holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request, we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. If you want to schedule an 

appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The major 

purposes of the CSP are to: Expand 

opportunities for all students, 

particularly students facing educational 

disadvantages and students who 

traditionally have been underserved by 

charter schools, to attend high-quality 

charter schools and meet challenging 

State academic standards; provide 

financial assistance for the planning, 

program design, and initial 

implementation of public charter 

schools; increase the number of highquality charter schools available to 

students across the United States; 

evaluate the impact of charter schools 

on student achievement, families, and 

communities; share best practices 

between charter schools and other 

public schools; encourage States to 

provide facilities support to charter 

schools; and support efforts to 

strengthen the charter school 

authorizing process. Through the CMO 

grant program, the Department provides 

funds to CMOs on a competitive basis 

to enable them to replicate or expand 

one or more high-quality charter 

schools. More specifically, grant funds 

may be used to expand the enrollment 

of one or more existing high-quality 

charter schools, or to open one or more 

high-quality charter schools by 

replicating an existing high-quality 

charter school model. 

Program Authority: Section 4305(b) of the 

ESEA. 

Proposed Priorities: 

This document contains seven 

proposed priorities. 

Proposed Priority 1—Promoting 

Diversity. 

Background: The CSP authorizing 

statute includes a priority under the 

CMO grant program for eligible entities 

that plan to operate or manage highquality charter schools with racially and 

socioeconomically diverse student 

bodies. The proposed priority is based 

on the statutory priority, but would 

specify that the schools must have an 

intentional focus on racial and 

socioeconomic diversity. Accordingly, 

the proposed priority would help ensure 

that the Department targets for funding 

those CMOs taking active steps to 

promote racial and economic diversity 

in their schools, which we believe is 

consistent with the intent of the 

statutory priority. 

A similar priority was included as a 

competitive preference priority in the 

FY 2017 notice inviting applications for 

this program (82 FR 4322) (FY 2017 

NIA). 

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, 

applicants must propose to replicate or 

expand high-quality charter schools that 

have an intentional focus on recruiting 

students from racially and 

socioeconomically diverse backgrounds 

and maintaining racially and 

socioeconomically diverse student 

bodies. 

Proposed Priority 2—School 

Improvement through Restart Efforts. 

Background: The CSP authorizing 

statute includes a priority under the 

CMO grant program for eligible entities 

that demonstrate success in working 

with schools identified by the State for 

comprehensive support and 

improvement under section 

1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA. States must 

identify schools for comprehensive 

support and improvement at the 

beginning of the 2018–19 school year. 

This proposed priority incorporates the 

statutory priority but, in order to meet 

the priority, the applicant also would be 

required to use CMO grant funds to 

support school improvement efforts by 

restarting an Academically Poorperforming Public School. We believe 

that the restart model (i.e., reopening a 

low-performing traditional public 

school under the management of a 

charter school developer or CMO, or 

reopening a low-performing public 

charter school under the management of 

a different charter school developer or 

CMO) holds promise as a school 

improvement strategy, but data suggest 

that it has been under-utilized thus far.2

Accordingly, the proposed priority is 

intended to help increase the frequency 

of implementation of the restart model. 

The proposed priority also would allow 

applicants to demonstrate past success 

through work with persistently-lowest 

achieving schools or priority schools 

(i.e., schools identified for interventions 

under the former School Improvement 

Grant program or in States that 

exercised ‘‘ESEA flexibility,’’ 

respectively, under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001). 

In future CMO competitions that 

include this priority, we would 

encourage applicants to review CSP 

technical assistance materials pertaining 

to how an applicant may design an 

admissions lottery for an Academically 

Poor-performing Public School that the 

applicant is proposing to restart. Under 

the most recent version of the CSP 

nonregulatory guidance, for example, a 

charter school receiving CSP funds 

could, if permissible under applicable 

State law, exempt from its lottery 

students who are enrolled in the 

Academically Poor-performing Public 

School at the time it is restarted. 

A similar priority was included as a 

competitive preference priority in the 

FY 2017 NIA. 

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, 

the Secretary considers the extent to 

which applications— 

(a) Demonstrate past success working 

with one or more Academically Poorperforming Public Schools or schools 

that previously were designated as 

persistently lowest-achieving schools or 

priority schools under the former 

School Improvement Grant program or 

in States that exercised ESEA flexibility, 

respectively, under the ESEA, as 

amended by NCLB; and 

(b) Propose to use grant funds under 

this program to restart one or more 

Academically Poor-performing Public 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35574 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Schools as charter schools during the 

project period by— 

(i) Replicating one or more highquality charter schools based on a 

successful charter school model for 

which the applicant has provided 

evidence of success; and 

(ii) Targeting a demographically 

similar student population in the 

replicated charter schools as was served 

by the Academically Poor-performing 

Public Schools. 

Proposed Priority 3—High School 

Students. 

Background: Section 4305(b)(5)(C) of 

the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to 

give priority to applicants that propose 

to expand or replicate high-quality 

charter schools that serve high school 

students. In addition, section 

4310(2)(M) of the ESEA authorizes 

charter schools that serve postsecondary 

students to receive CSP funds. The 

proposed priority incorporates the 

language of the statutory priority but, in 

order to meet the priority, applicants 

also would be required to replicate or 

expand charter high schools that offer 

programs and activities designed to 

prepare high school students for 

enrollment in a two- or four-year 

institution of higher education and, 

drawing from the authority provided in 

section 4310(2)(M), support such 

students after high school graduation in 

persisting in college and attaining 

degrees. The Department believes the 

proposed priority would complement 

broader efforts to promote a culture of 

lifelong learning and increase 

postsecondary participation, attendance, 

persistence, and degree attainment 

among our Nation’s high school 

graduates. 

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, 

applicants must propose to— 

(i) Expand or replicate high-quality 

charter schools to serve high school 

students; 

(ii) Prepare students in those schools 

for enrollment in a two- or four-year 

institution of higher education through 

programs and activities such as, but not 

limited to, accelerated learning 

programs (including Advanced 

Placement and International 

Baccalaureate courses and programs, 

dual or concurrent enrollment 

programs, and early college high 

schools), college counseling, career 

counseling, internships, work-based 

learning programs (such as 

apprenticeships), assisting students in 

the college admissions and financial aid 

application processes, and preparing 

students to take standardized college 

admissions tests; 

(iii) Provide support for students who 

graduate from those schools and enroll 

in a two- or four-year institution of 

higher education in persisting in, and 

attaining a degree from, such 

institutions, through programs and 

activities such as, but not limited to, 

mentorships, ongoing assistance with 

the financial aid application process, 

and establishing or strengthening peer 

support systems for such students 

attending the same institution; and 

(iv) Propose one or more projectspecific performance measures, 

including aligned leading indicators or 

other interim milestones, that will 

provide valid and reliable information 

about the applicant’s progress in 

preparing students for enrolling in an 

institution of higher education and in 

supporting those students in persisting 

in and attaining a degree from such 

institutions. An applicant addressing 

this priority and receiving a grant under 

this program must provide data that are 

responsive to the measure(s), including 

performance targets, in its annual 

performance reports to the Department. 

Proposed Priority 4—Low-Income 

Demographic. 

Background: The proposed priority is 

for applicants with experience serving 

concentrations of students who are 

Individuals from Low-income Families 

and is intended to support efforts to 

increase the number of high-quality 

educational options available to such 

students, particularly in the Nation’s 

high-poverty areas. We propose three 

subparts to this proposed priority, each 

of which would require that the schools 

the applicant operates or manages serve 

a specific minimum percentage of 

students who are Individuals from Lowincome Families over the course of the 

CMO grant project period. The Secretary 

would have flexibility to choose one or 

more of the subparts of this priority in 

a given competition. We believe such 

flexibility is necessary to enable the 

Secretary to accommodate the range of 

eligible applicants and schools that may 

need support in a given year. The 

Department has included a similar 

priority in prior CMO competitions. 

The Department expects that the 

charter schools proposed to be 

replicated or expanded by an applicant 

meeting this proposed priority would 

serve, for the duration of the grant 

period, a percentage of students who are 

Individuals from Low-income Families 

that is comparable to the minimum 

percentage of such students established 

under the priority for a given year. 

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, 

applicants must demonstrate one of the 

following— 

(i) That at least 40 percent of the 

students across all of the charter schools 

the applicant operates or manages are 

Individuals from Low-income Families; 

(ii) That at least 50 percent of the 

students across all of the charter schools 

the applicant operates or manages are 

Individuals from Low-income Families; 

or 

(iii) That at least 60 percent of the 

students across all of the charter schools 

the applicant operates or manages are 

Individuals from Low-income Families. 

Proposed Priority 5—Number of 

Charter Schools Operated or Managed 

by the Eligible Applicant. 

Background: We propose this priority 

to enable the Department to distinguish 

applicants based on the number of 

charter schools they currently operate or 

manage. We propose three subparts for 

this priority, each of which would 

require that the applicant currently 

operate or manage a different number of 

schools. The Secretary would have the 

flexibility to choose one or more of the 

subparts of this priority in a given 

competition. This priority would give 

the Department flexibility to respond to 

changing funding needs in the charter 

school sector by, for example, targeting 

support toward smaller CMOs (i.e., 

CMOs that currently operate or manage 

no more than five charter schools) as 

they begin to expand, or toward larger, 

more established CMOs that seek to 

serve new communities. In addition, 

given that the CSP statute, as 

reauthorized under the ESEA, now also 

allows State entities to award subgrants 

for the replication and expansion of 

high-quality charter schools, this 

priority would enable the Department to 

focus its grant-making, as appropriate, 

based on new and evolving support for 

the replication and expansion of charter 

schools at the State level. 

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, 

applicants must demonstrate one of the 

following— 

(i) That they currently operate or 

manage two to five charter schools; 

(ii) That they currently operate or 

manage six to 20 charter schools; or 

(iii) That they currently operate or 

manage 21 or more charter schools. 

Proposed Priority 6—Geographic 

Location of Charter Schools Proposed to 

Be Replicated or Expanded. 

Background: We propose this priority 

to enable the Department to provide 

incentives for applicants to propose to 

replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools in Rural Communities. There is 

too often a relative dearth of highquality educational options for students 

in Rural Communities, and our 

experience implementing this and other 

discretionary grant programs has taught 

us that these communities often face 

unique obstacles to educational success. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35575 

This proposed priority would allow the 

Department flexibility to provide an 

incentive for applicants proposing to 

replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools in Rural Communities, 

including by evaluating such 

applications separately from 

applications proposing to replicate or 

expand high-quality charter schools in 

non-rural communities, thereby 

allowing for an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’ 

comparison. Accordingly, this proposed 

priority would help ensure that students 

in Rural Communities have access to a 

range of educational options similar to 

that available to their peers in suburban 

and urban areas, and from which 

parents can select an option that best 

meets their child’s needs. 

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, 

applicants must propose to replicate or 

expand one or more high-quality charter 

schools in a: 

(i) Rural Community; or 

(ii) Community that is not a Rural 

Community. 

Proposed Priority 7—Replicating or 

Expanding High-quality Charter Schools 

to Serve Students who are Indians. 

Background: We propose this priority 

to enable the Department to provide an 

incentive for applicants that propose to 

replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools by conducting targeted outreach 

and recruitment in order to serve a High 

Proportion of students who are Indians. 

We propose to define ‘‘High Proportion’’ 

in a way that would enable the 

Department to determine whether a 

replicated or expanded charter school 

serves a High Proportion of students 

who are Indians on a case-by-case basis, 

taking into consideration the unique 

factual circumstances of that school. 

In order to meet the priority, an 

applicant would be required to provide 

a letter of support from one or more 

Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations 

located within the area to be served by 

the replicated or expanded charter 

school, and to demonstrate a 

commitment to meaningfully 

collaborate with the Indian Tribes or 

Indian Organizations in a timely, active, 

and ongoing manner. In addition, the 

applicant would have to demonstrate 

that the replicated or expanded charter 

school’s mission and educational 

program will address the unique 

educational needs of students who are 

Indians, and that such school’s 

governing board will have a substantial 

percentage of members who are 

members of Indian Tribes or Indian 

Organizations located within the area to 

be served by the charter school. 

Priority: Under this priority, 

applicants must— 

(i) Propose to replicate or expand one 

or more high-quality charter schools 

that— 

(I) Utilize targeted outreach and 

recruitment in order to serve a High 

Proportion of students who are Indians; 

(II) Have a mission and academic 

program that will address the unique 

educational needs of students who are 

Indians, including through the use of 

instructional programs and teaching 

methods that reflect and preserve Indian 

language, culture, and history; and 

(III) Have a governing board with a 

substantial percentage of members who 

are members of Indian Tribes or Indian 

Organizations located within the area to 

be served by the replicated or expanded 

charter school; 

(ii) Submit a letter of support, from at 

least one Indian Tribe or Indian 

Organization located within the area to 

be served by the replicated or expanded 

charter school; and 

(iii) Demonstrate a commitment to 

meaningfully collaborate with the 

Indian Tribe(s) or Indian Organization(s) 

from which the applicant has received 

a letter of support in a timely, active, 

and ongoing manner with respect to the 

development and implementation of the 

educational program at the charter 

school. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirements: 

Background: The ESEA includes 

several requirements for applications 

submitted under this program. We have 

listed the statutory application 

requirements in the Appendix for 

reference. In addition to the specific 

statutory requirements, section 4305(c) 

of the ESEA requires grants awarded to 

CMOs to have the ‘‘same terms and 

conditions as grants awarded to State 

entities under section 4303.’’ We 

propose some requirements for this 

program that apply to State entity grants 

under section 4303(f). We have included 

in the Appendix to this document other 

requirements in section 4303(f) that we 

intend to apply to CMO grants but that 

do not require rulemaking. In applying 

the latter requirements to CMO grants, 

references to ‘‘State entity’’ and ‘‘State 

entity program’’ must be read as 

references to ‘‘charter management 

organization’’ and ‘‘grant award,’’ 

respectively. 

In general, the Department believes, 

based on past experience administering 

this program, that these proposed 

requirements are necessary for the 

proper consideration of applications for 

CMO grants and would increase the 

likelihood of success of applicants’ 

proposed projects, thereby contributing 

to the efficient use of taxpayer dollars in 

expanding the high-quality educational 

options available to our Nation’s 

students. In accordance with section 

4305(c), these proposed requirements 

would not preclude the Department 

from applying other terms and 

conditions applicable to State entity 

grants to CMO grants in FY 2019 or 

future years. 

Proposed Requirements: The Acting 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement proposes 

the following requirements for this 

program. We would apply one or more 

of these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Applicants for funds under this 

program must meet one or more of the 

following requirements— 

(a) Demonstrate that the applicant 

currently operates or manages more 

than one charter school. For purposes of 

this program, multiple charter schools 

are considered to be separate schools if 

each school— 

(i) Meets each element of the 

definition of ‘‘charter school’’ under 

section 4310(2) of the ESEA; and 

(ii) Is treated as a separate school by 

its authorized public chartering agency 

and the State in which the charter 

school is located, including for purposes 

of accountability and reporting under 

title I, part A of the ESEA. 

(b) Provide information regarding any 

compliance issues and how they were 

resolved, for any charter schools 

operated or managed by the applicant 

that have— 

(i) Closed; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Had their charter(s) revoked due to 

problems with statutory or regulatory 

compliance, including compliance with 

sections 4310(2)(G) and (J) of the ESEA; 

or 

(iii) Had their affiliation with the 

applicant revoked or terminated, 

including through voluntary 

disaffiliation. 

(c) Provide a complete logic model (as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1) for the grant 

project. The logic model must include 

the applicant’s objectives for replicating 

or expanding one or more high-quality 

charter schools with funding under this 

program, including the number of highquality charter schools the applicant 

proposes to replicate or expand. 

(d) If the applicant currently operates, 

or is proposing to replicate or expand, 

a single-sex charter school or 

coeducational charter school that 

provides a single-sex class or 

extracurricular activity (collectively 

referred to as a ‘‘single-sex educational 

program’’), demonstrate that the existing 

or proposed single-sex educational 

program is in compliance with Title IX 

of the Education Amendments of 1972 

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

its implementing regulations, including 

34 CFR 106.34. 

(e) Describe how the applicant 

currently operates or manages the highquality charter schools for which it has 

presented evidence of success and how 

the proposed replicated or expanded 

charter schools will be operated or 

managed, including the legal 

relationship between the applicant and 

its schools. If a legal entity other than 

the applicant has entered or will enter 

into a performance contract with an 

authorized public chartering agency to 

operate one or more of the applicant’s 

schools, the applicant must also 

describe its relationship with that 

entity. 

(f) Describe how the applicant will 

solicit and consider input from parents 

and other members of the community 

on the implementation and operation of 

each replicated or expanded charter 

school, including in the area of school 

governance. 

(g) Describe the lottery and 

enrollment procedures that will be used 

for each replicated or expanded charter 

school if more students apply for 

admission than can be accommodated, 

including how any proposed weighted 

lottery complies with section 

4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA. 

(h) Describe how the applicant will 

ensure that all eligible students with 

disabilities receive a free appropriate 

public education in accordance with 

part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act. 

(i) Describe how the proposed project 

will assist Educationally Disadvantaged 

Students in mastering challenging State 

academic standards. 

(j) Provide a budget narrative, aligned 

with the activities, target grant project 

outputs, and outcomes described in the 

logic model, that outlines how Federal 

grant funds will be expended to carry 

out planned activities. 

(k) Provide the applicant’s most 

recent independently audited financial 

statements prepared in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting 

principles. 

(l) Describe the applicant’s policies 

and procedures to assist students 

enrolled in a charter school that closes 

or loses its charter to attend other highquality schools. 

(m) Provide— 

(A) A request and justification for 

waivers of any Federal statutory or 

regulatory provisions that the eligible 

entity believes are necessary for the 

successful operation of the charter 

schools to be replicated or expanded; 

and 

(B) A description of any State or local 

rules, generally applicable to public 

schools, that will be waived, or 

otherwise not apply to such schools. 

Proposed Definitions: 

The Acting Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes the following 

definitions for this program. We may 

apply one or more of these definitions 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. 

Background: In order to ensure 

common understanding of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria, we propose nine definitions of 

terms that are critical to the policy and 

statutory purposes of the CMO grant 

program. We propose these definitions 

in order to clarify expectations for 

eligible entities applying for CMO grants 

and to ensure that the review process for 

applications for CMO grants remains as 

transparent as possible. The proposed 

definition for Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students is based on 

section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, the 

proposed definition for Indian is taken 

from section 6151(3) of the ESEA, the 

proposed definition for Indian 

Organization is from 34 CFR 263.3, and 

the proposed definition for Indian Tribe 

is from section 6132(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

Academically poor-performing public 

school means: 

(a) A school identified by the State for 

comprehensive support and 

improvement under section 

1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA; or 

(b) A public school otherwise 

identified by the State, or in the case of 

a charter school, its authorized public 

chartering agency, as similarly 

academically poor-performing. 

Educationally disadvantaged student 

means a student in one or more of the 

categories described in section 

1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which include 

children who are economically 

disadvantaged, students with 

disabilities, migrant students, English 

learners, neglected or delinquent 

students, homeless students, and 

students who are in foster care. 

High proportion, when used to refer to 

students who are Indians, is a factspecific, case-by-case determination 

based upon the unique circumstances of 

a particular charter school or proposed 

charter school. The Secretary considers 

‘‘high proportion’’ to include a majority 

of students who are Indians. In addition, 

the Secretary may determine that less 

than a majority of students who are 

Indians constitutes a ‘‘high proportion’’ 

based on the unique circumstances of a 

particular charter school or proposed 

charter school, as described in the 

application for funds. 

Indian means an individual who is— 

(A) A member of an Indian tribe or 

band, as membership is defined by the 

tribe or band, including— 

(i) Any tribe or band terminated since 

1940; and 

(ii) Any tribe or band recognized by 

the State in which the tribe or band 

resides; 

(B) A descendant, in the first or 

second degree, of an individual 

described in subparagraph (A); 

(C) Considered by the Secretary of the 

Interior to be an Indian for any purpose; 

(D) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska 

Native; or 

(E) A member of an organized Indian 

group that received a grant under the 

Indian Education Act of 1988 as in 

effect the day preceding the date of 

enactment of the Improving America’s 

Schools Act of 1994. 

Indian organization means an 

organization that— 

(1) Is legally established— 

(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or 

in accordance with State or tribal law; 

and 

(ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of incorporation; 

(2) Includes in its purposes the 

promotion of the education of Indians; 

(3) Is controlled by a governing board, 

the majority of which is Indian; 

(4) If located on an Indian reservation, 

operates with the sanction or by charter 

of the governing body of that 

reservation; 

(5) Is neither an organization or 

subdivision of, nor under the direct 

control of, any institution of higher 

education; and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35577 

(6) Is not an agency of State or local 

government. 

Indian tribe means a federallyrecognized or a State-recognized tribe. 

Individual from a low-income family 

means an individual who is determined 

by a State educational agency or local 

educational agency to be a child from a 

low-income family on the basis of (a) 

data used by the Secretary to determine 

allocations under section 1124 of the 

ESEA, (b) data on children eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunches under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act, (c) data on children in 

families receiving assistance under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act, 

(d) data on children eligible to receive 

medical assistance under the Medicaid 

program under Title XIX of the Social 

Security Act, or (e) an alternate method 

that combines or extrapolates from the 

data in items (a) through (d) of this 

definition. 

Rural community means a community 

that is served by a local educational 

agency that is eligible to apply for funds 

under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under title V, part B 

of the ESEA. Applicants may determine 

whether a particular local educational 

agency is eligible for these programs by 

referring to information on the following 

Department websites. For the SRSA 

program: www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

reapsrsa/eligible16/index.html. For the 

RLIS program: www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

reaprlisp/eligibility.html. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: 

Background: The ESEA includes three 

selection criteria for the CMO grant 

program, which are included in the 

Appendix for reference. We propose a 

criterion that would expand upon those 

included in the authorizing statute, as 

well as three other criteria. Based on 

past experience implementing the CMO 

grant program, we believe that these 

additional criteria will be valuable tools 

for peer reviewers to evaluate the 

quality of CMO applications in future 

years. 

Specifically, proposed selection 

criterion (a) ‘‘Quality of the Eligible 

Applicant’’ derives from the ESEA 

selection criteria for this program, under 

which the Department considers the 

degree to which an applicant has 

demonstrated success in increasing 

student academic achievement and 

whether charter schools operated or 

managed by the applicant have been 

closed or have encountered statutory or 

regulatory compliance issues. The 

proposed criterion would expand on the 

statutory criteria by examining the 

extent to which academic achievement 

results for Educationally Disadvantaged 

Students attending an applicant’s 

schools have exceeded State averages 

for such students in the State. Further, 

we propose to incorporate into this 

criterion language from the ESEA 

definition of ‘‘high-quality charter 

school’’ that would enable reviewers 

also to consider any significant issues 

that an applicant’s charter schools have 

encountered in the areas of financial or 

operational management and student 

safety. The Department believes that 

these proposed selection factors would 

align with the intent of the authorizing 

statute and would bolster our ability to 

select high-quality CMO applicants. 

Proposed selection criterion (b) 

‘‘Contribution in assisting Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students’’ would focus 

on the contribution the proposed project 

would make in expanding educational 

opportunities for Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students and enabling 

those students to meet challenging State 

academic standards. This proposed 

criterion would allow the Department to 

assess the extent to which each 

proposed project aligns with a major 

statutory purpose of the CSP: To expand 

opportunities for Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students. This criterion 

would encourage applicants to discuss 

(1) their current capacity to serve 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students, 

including students with disabilities and 

English learners, and to compare that 

capacity to that of surrounding public 

schools, and (2) their plans for 

replicating or expanding high-quality 

charter schools that will recruit and 

enroll Educationally Disadvantaged 

Students. 

Proposed selection criterion (c) 

‘‘Quality of the evaluation plan for the 

proposed project’’ would examine how 

applicants would evaluate their 

proposed projects. It is crucial that the 

Department invest its limited 

discretionary funding in projects that 

are based on a reasoned theory and that 

are likely to yield information that can 

be used to continue to expand highquality educational options for students. 

This criterion would allow the 

Department to assess the extent to 

which each CMO applicant: Has based 

its proposed project on a logic model (as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that links the 

planned inputs and outputs to clearly 

defined intended outcomes of the 

project; will use objective performance 

measures to ensure that the project 

remains on track to meet stated 

objectives; and will be able to produce 

qualitative and quantitative data by the 

end of the grant period. 

Finally, proposed selection criterion 

(d) ‘‘Quality of the management plan 

and personnel’’ would allow applicants 

to highlight the management plan for 

their proposed project, the 

qualifications of key project personnel, 

and the potential for sustaining the 

charter schools included in the 

proposed project after the grant has 

expired. While similar selection factors 

exist in the general selection criteria in 

34 CFR 75.210, our intent for this 

proposed selection criterion is to focus 

on the extent to which the applicant 

could demonstrate its specific 

experience with, and proposed 

management plan for, replicating or 

expanding high-quality charter schools. 

We believe, based on past experience 

implementing this program, that the 

proposed criterion is appropriate to 

ascertain the likelihood of an 

applicant’s success. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: The 

Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement proposes 

the following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the NIA, we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

The Secretary will select eligible 

entities to receive grants under this 

program on the basis of the quality of 

such applications, after taking into 

consideration one or more of the 

following selection criteria: 

(a) Quality of the eligible applicant. In 

determining the quality of the eligible 

applicant, the Secretary considers one 

or more of the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the academic 

achievement results (including annual 

student performance on statewide 

assessments and annual student 

attendance and retention rates, and 

where applicable and available, student 

academic growth, high school 

graduation rates, college attendance 

rates, and college persistence rates) for 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students 

served by the charter schools operated 

or managed by the applicant have 

exceeded the average academic 

achievement results for such students in 

the State. 

(ii) The extent to which one or more 

charter schools operated or managed by 

the applicant have closed; have had a 

charter revoked due to noncompliance 

with statutory or regulatory 

requirements; or have had their 

affiliation with the applicant revoked or 

terminated, including through voluntary 

disaffiliation. 

(iii) The extent to which one or more 

charter schools operated or managed by 

the applicant have had any significant 

issues in the area of financial or 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35578 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

operational management or student 

safety or have otherwise experienced 

significant problems with statutory or 

regulatory compliance that could lead to 

revocation of the school’s charter. 

(b) Contribution in assisting 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students. 

The significance of the contribution 

the proposed project will make in 

expanding educational opportunities for 

Educationally Disadvantaged Students 

and enabling those students to meet 

challenging State academic standards. 

In determining the significance of the 

contribution the proposed project will 

make, the Secretary considers one or 

more of the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which charter 

schools currently operated or managed 

by the applicant serve Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students, including 

students with disabilities and English 

learners, at rates comparable to 

surrounding public schools or, in the 

case of virtual charter schools, at rates 

comparable to public schools in the 

State. 

(ii) The quality of the plan to ensure 

that the charter schools the applicant 

proposes to replicate or expand will 

recruit and enroll Educationally 

Disadvantaged Students. 

(c) Quality of the evaluation plan for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation plan for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

extent to which the methods of 

evaluation include the use of objective 

performance measures that are clearly 

related to the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project, as articulated in the 

applicant’s logic model (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1), and that will produce 

quantitative and qualitative data by the 

end of the grant period. 

(d) Quality of the management plan. 

In determining the quality of the 

applicant’s management plan, the 

Secretary considers the ability of the 

applicant to sustain the operation of the 

replicated or expanded charter schools 

after the grant has ended, as 

demonstrated by the multi-year 

financial and operating model required 

under section 4305(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the 

ESEA. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a document in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

public comments and other information 

available to the Department. This 

document does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would 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. 

Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that this 

regulatory action would not impose 

significant costs on eligible entities, 

whose participation in this program is 

voluntary. While this action would 

impose some requirements on 

participating CMOs that are costbearing, the Department expects that 

applicants for this program would 

include in their proposed budgets a 

request for funds to support compliance 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35579 

with such cost-bearing requirements. 

Therefore, costs associated with meeting 

these requirements are, in the 

Department’s estimation, minimal. 

This regulatory action would 

strengthen accountability for the use of 

Federal funds by helping to ensure that 

the Department selects for CSP grants 

the CMOs that are most capable of 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools available to our Nation’s 

students, consistent with a major 

purpose of the CSP as described in 

section 4301(3) of the ESEA. The 

Department believes that these benefits 

to the Federal government and to SEAs 

outweigh the costs associated with this 

action. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to administer the program 

effectively. As an alternative to 

promulgating the proposed selection 

criteria, the Department could choose 

from among the selection criteria 

authorized for CSP grants to CMOs in 

section 4305(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

7221c) and the general selection criteria 

in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe 

that these criteria provide a sufficient 

basis on which to evaluate the quality 

of applications. In particular, the criteria 

would not sufficiently enable the 

Department to assess an applicant’s past 

performance with respect to the 

operation of high-quality charter schools 

or with respect to compliance issues 

that the applicant has encountered. 

We note that several of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are based on priorities, 

requirements, definitions, selection 

criteria, and other provisions in the 

authorizing statute for this program. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

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

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to SEAs. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[In millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Transfers ......................................................................................................... $90. 

From Whom To Whom? ...................................................................................................................... From the Federal Government to CMOs. 

Under Executive Order 13771, for 

each new regulation that the 

Department proposes for notice and 

comment or otherwise promulgates that 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 and that imposes 

total costs greater than zero, it must 

identify two deregulatory actions. For 

Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental 

costs associated with a new regulation 

must be fully offset by the elimination 

of existing costs through deregulatory 

actions. However, Executive Order 

13771 does not apply to ‘‘transfer rules’’ 

that cause only income transfers 

between taxpayers and program 

beneficiaries, such as those regarding 

discretionary grant programs. These 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

be utilized in connection with a 

discretionary grant program and, 

therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not 

applicable. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

contain information collection 

requirements that are approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1894–0006; 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

and selection criteria do not affect the 

currently approved data collection. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 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 23, 2018. 

James C. Blew, 

Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement. 

Appendix 

This Appendix includes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria from sections 4303(f), 4305(b), 

4305(c), and 8101 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 

77.1 for reference. 

Priorities: The following priorities are from 

section 4305(b)(5) of the ESEA: 

(5) Priority.—In awarding grants under this 

section, the Secretary shall give priority to 

eligible entities that— 

(A) Plan to operate or manage high-quality 

charter schools with racially and 

socioeconomically diverse student bodies; 

(B) Demonstrate success in working with 

schools identified by the State for 

comprehensive support and improvement 

under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i); 

(C) Propose to use funds— 

(i) To expand high-quality charter schools 

to serve high school students; or 

(ii) To replicate high-quality charter 

schools to serve high school students; or 

(D) Propose to operate or manage highquality charter schools that focus on dropout 

recovery and academic re-entry. 

Requirements and Assurances: The 

following requirements and assurances are 

from sections 4303(f) and 4305(b)(3), 

respectively, of the ESEA. In accordance with 

section 4305(c), we include in this Appendix 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35580 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

key statutory provisions in section 4303(f) 

that apply to State entity grants that we 

intend to apply to CMO grants. In applying 

the requirements in section 4303(f) to CMO 

grants, references to ‘‘State entity’’ and ‘‘State 

entity program’’ must be read as references to 

‘‘charter management organization’’ and 

‘‘grant award,’’ respectively. 

4303(f) Applications.—A State entity 

desiring to receive a grant under this section 

shall submit an application to the Secretary 

at such time and in such manner as the 

Secretary may require. The application shall 

include the following: 

(1) Description of program.—A description 

of the State entity’s objectives in running a 

quality charter school program under this 

section and how the program will be carried 

out, including— 

(A) A description of how the State entity 

will— 

(x) Ensure that charter schools receiving 

funds under the State entity’s program meet 

the educational needs of their students, 

including children with disabilities and 

English learners; and 

(xiii)(E) A description of how the State 

entity will ensure that each charter school 

receiving funds under the State entity’s 

program has considered and planned for the 

transportation needs of the school’s students. 

(2) Assurances.—Assurances that— 

(B) The State entity will support charter 

schools in meeting the educational needs of 

their students, as described in paragraph 

(1)(A)(x); and 

(G) The State entity will ensure that each 

charter school receiving funds under the 

State entity’s program makes publicly 

available, consistent with the dissemination 

requirements of the annual State report card 

under section 1111(h), including on the 

website of the school, information to help 

parents make informed decisions about the 

education options available to their children, 

including— 

(i) Information on the educational program; 

(ii) Student support services; 

(iii) Parent contract requirements (as 

applicable), including any financial 

obligations or fees; 

(iv) Enrollment criteria (as applicable); and 

(v) Annual performance and enrollment 

data for each of the subgroups of students, as 

defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that 

such disaggregation of performance and 

enrollment data shall not be required in a 

case in which the number of students in a 

group is insufficient to yield statically 

reliable information or the results would 

reveal personally identifiable information 

about an individual student. 

4305(b)(3) Application Requirements.—An 

eligible entity desiring to receive a grant 

under this subsection shall submit an 

application to the Secretary at such time and 

in such manner as the Secretary may require. 

The application shall include the following: 

(A) Existing Charter School Data.—For 

each charter school currently operated or 

managed by the eligible entity— 

(i) Student assessment results for all 

students and for each subgroup of students 

described in section 1111(c)(2); 

(ii) Attendance and student retention rates 

for the most recently completed school year 

and, if applicable, the most recent available 

four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates 

and extended-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rates; and 

(iii) Information on any significant 

compliance and management issues 

encountered within the last three school 

years by any school operated or managed by 

the eligible entity, including in the areas of 

student safety and finance. 

(B) Descriptions.—A description of— 

(i) The eligible entity’s objectives for 

implementing a high-quality charter school 

program with funding under this subsection, 

including a description of the proposed 

number of high-quality charter schools the 

eligible entity proposes to open as a result of 

the replication of a high-quality charter 

school or to expand with funding under this 

subsection; 

(ii) The educational program that the 

eligible entity will implement in such charter 

schools, including— 

(I) Information on how the program will 

enable all students to meet the challenging 

State academic standards; 

(II) The grade levels or ages of students 

who will be served; and 

(III) The instructional practices that will be 

used; 

(iii) How the operation of such charter 

schools will be sustained after the grant 

under this subsection has ended, which shall 

include a multi-year financial and operating 

model for the eligible entity; 

(iv) How the eligible entity will ensure that 

such charter schools will recruit and enroll 

students, including children with 

disabilities, English learners, and other 

educationally disadvantaged students; and 

(v) Any request and justification for any 

waivers of Federal statutory or regulatory 

requirements that the eligible entity believes 

are necessary for the successful operation of 

such charter schools. 

(C) Assurance.—An assurance that the 

eligible entity has sufficient procedures in 

effect to ensure timely closure of lowperforming or financially mismanaged 

charter schools and clear plans and 

procedures in effect for the students in such 

schools to attend other high-quality schools. 

Definitions: The following definitions are 

from the ESEA or Department regulations. 

The specific source of each definition is 

noted in parentheses following each 

definition. 

Authorized public chartering agency 

means a State educational agency, local 

educational agency, or other public entity 

that has the authority pursuant to State law 

and approved by the Secretary to authorize 

or approve a charter school. (Section 4310(1) 

of the ESEA) 

Charter school means a public school 

that— 

(A) In accordance with a specific State 

statute authorizing the granting of charters to 

schools, is exempt from significant State or 

local rules that inhibit the flexible operation 

and management of public schools, but not 

from any rules relating to the other 

requirements of this paragraph; 

(B) Is created by a developer as a public 

school, or is adapted by a developer from an 

existing public school, and is operated under 

public supervision and direction; 

(C) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of 

educational objectives determined by the 

school’s developer and agreed to by the 

authorized public chartering agency; 

(D) Provides a program of elementary or 

secondary education, or both; 

(E) Is nonsectarian in its programs, 

admissions policies, employment practices, 

and all other operations, and is not affiliated 

with a sectarian school or religious 

institution; 

(F) Does not charge tuition; 

(G) Complies with the Age Discrimination 

Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

12101 et seq.), section 444 of the General 

Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) 

(commonly referred to as the ‘‘Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 

1974’’), and part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act; 

(H) Is a school to which parents choose to 

send their children, and that— 

(i) Admits students on the basis of a 

lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A), 

if more students apply for admission than 

can be accommodated; or 

(ii) In the case of a school that has an 

affiliated charter school (such as a school that 

is part of the same network of schools), 

automatically enrolls students who are 

enrolled in the immediate prior grade level 

of the affiliated charter school and, for any 

additional student openings or student 

openings created through regular attrition in 

student enrollment in the affiliated charter 

school and the enrolling school, admits 

students on the basis of a lottery as described 

in clause (i); 

(I) Agrees to comply with the same Federal 

and State audit requirements as do other 

elementary schools and secondary schools in 

the State, unless such State audit 

requirements are waived by the State; 

(J) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and 

local health and safety requirements; 

(K) Operates in accordance with State law; 

(L) Has a written performance contract 

with the authorized public chartering agency 

in the State that includes a description of 

how student performance will be measured 

in charter schools pursuant to State 

assessments that are required of other schools 

and pursuant to any other assessments 

mutually agreeable to the authorizing public 

chartering agency and the charter school; and 

(M) May serve students in early childhood 

education programs or postsecondary 

students. (Section 4310(2) of the ESEA) 

Charter management organization means a 

nonprofit organization that operates or 

manages a network of charter schools linked 

by centralized support, operations, and 

oversight. (Section 4310(3) of the ESEA) 

Developer means an individual or group of 

individuals (including a public or private 

nonprofit organization), which may include 

teachers, administrators and other school 

staff, parents, or other members of the local 

community in which a charter school project 

will be carried out. (Section 4310(5) of the 

ESEA) 

Dual or concurrent enrollment program 

means a program offered by a partnership 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35581 

between at least one institution of higher 

education and at least one local educational 

agency through which a secondary school 

student who has not graduated from high 

school with a regular high school diploma is 

able to enroll in one or more postsecondary 

courses and earn postsecondary credit that— 

(A) Is transferable to the institutions of 

higher education in the partnership; and 

(B) Applies toward completion of a degree 

or recognized educational credential as 

described in the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). (Section 

8101(15) of the ESEA) 

Early college high school means a 

partnership between at least one local 

educational agency and at least one 

institution of higher education that allows 

participants to simultaneously complete 

requirements toward earning a regular high 

school diploma and earn not less than 12 

credits that are transferable to the institutions 

of higher education in the partnership as part 

of an organized course of study toward a 

postsecondary degree or credential at no cost 

to the participant or participant’s family. 

(Section 8101(17) of the ESEA) 

Expand, when used with respect to a highquality charter school, means to significantly 

increase enrollment or add one or more 

grades to the high-quality charter school. 

(Section 4310(7) of the ESEA) 

High-quality charter school means a 

charter school that— 

(a) Shows evidence of strong academic 

results, which may include strong student 

academic growth, as determined by a State; 

(b) Has no significant issues in the areas of 

student safety, financial and operational 

management, or statutory or regulatory 

compliance; 

(c) Has demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student academic 

achievement, including graduation rates 

where applicable, for all students served by 

the charter school; and 

(d) Has demonstrated success in increasing 

student academic achievement, including 

graduation rates where applicable, for each of 

the subgroups of students, as defined in 

section 1111(c)(2), except that such 

demonstration is not required in a case in 

which the number of students in a group is 

insufficient to yield statistically reliable 

information or the results would reveal 

personally identifiable information about an 

individual student. (Section 4310(8) of the 

ESEA) 

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of 

action) means a framework that identifies key 

project components of the proposed project 

(i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are 

hypothesized to be critical to achieving the 

relevant outcomes) and describes the 

theoretical and operational relationships 

among the key project components and 

relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1) 

Replicate, when used with respect to a 

high-quality charter school, means to open a 

new charter school, or a new campus of a 

high-quality charter school, based on the 

educational model of an existing high-quality 

charter school, under an existing charter or 

an additional charter, if permitted or required 

by State law. (Section 4310(9) of the ESEA) 

Selection Criteria: The following selection 

criteria are from section 4305(b)(4) of the 

ESEA. 

(4) Selection Criteria.—The Secretary shall 

select eligible entities to receive grants under 

this subsection, on the basis of the quality of 

the applications submitted under paragraph 

(3), after taking into consideration such 

factors as— 

(A) The degree to which the eligible entity 

has demonstrated success in increasing 

academic achievement for all students and 

for each of the subgroups of students 

described in section 1111(c)(2) attending the 

charter schools the eligible entity operates or 

manages; 

(B) A determination that the eligible entity 

has not operated or managed a significant 

proportion of charter schools that— 

(i) Have been closed; 

(ii) Have had the school’s charter revoked 

due to problems with statutory or regulatory 

compliance; or 

(iii) Have had the school’s affiliation with 

the eligible entity revoked or terminated, 

including through voluntary disaffiliation; 

and 

(C) A determination that the eligible entity 

has not experienced significant problems 

with statutory or regulatory compliance that 

could lead to the revocation of a school’s 

charter. 

Terms and Conditions: The following 

terms and conditions are from section 

4305(c) of the ESEA. 

(c) Terms and Conditions.—Except as 

otherwise provided, grants awarded under 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall 

have the same terms and conditions as grants 

awarded to State entities under section 4303. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15977 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0084; FRL–9981– 

38—Region 6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Old Esco Manufacturing 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Old Esco 

Manufacturing Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Greenville, Texas, from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Texas, through the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2008–0084, by mail to Brian W. 

Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division 

(6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division 

(6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 

665–7167, email: mueller.brian@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

issue of the Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of Old Esco Manufacturing 

Superfund Site without prior Notice of 

Intent to Delete because we view this as 

a noncontroversial revision and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

deletion in the preamble to the direct 

final Notice of Deletion, and those 

reasons are incorporated herein. If we 

receive no adverse comment(s) on this 

deletion action, we will not take further 

action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. 

If we receive adverse comment(s), we 

will withdraw the direct final Notice of 

Deletion, and it will not take effect. We 

will, as appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Deletion based on this Notice of 

Intent to Delete. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this Notice 

of Intent to Delete. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Deletion which is 

located in the Rules section of this issue 

of the Federal Register. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1