Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 1709 

Table 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) No. 139–648, dated August 

10, 2020 (referred to as ‘‘ASB 139–648 First 

Issue’’), within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after December 4, 2020 (the effective date of 

AD 2020–23–07), remove each affected 

reservoir from service. Any reservoir with the 

letter ‘‘R’’ after the S/N is excluded from this 

requirement. 

(2) For helicopters with a RH or LH 

reservoir P/N 3G2560V01951 or P/N 

3G2560V01251 and with an S/N listed in 

Table 1 of Leonardo Helicopters ASB No. 

139–662, dated February 15, 2021 (ASB 139– 

662) within 25 hours TIS after the effective 

date of this AD, remove each affected 

reservoir from service. Any reservoir with the 

letter ‘‘R’’ after the S/N is excluded from this 

requirement. 

(3) For helicopters with a RH or LH 

reservoir P/N 3G2560V01951 or P/N 

3G2560V01251 and with an S/N not listed in 

Table 1 of ASB 139–648 First Issue or Table 

1 of ASB 139–662 installed, within 25 hours 

TIS or before the reservoir accumulates 55 

total hours TIS since first installation on a 

helicopter, whichever occurs later after 

December 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 

2020–23–07), inspect the valve pull rod of 

each reservoir by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, Part II, 

paragraphs 3. through 5.1, of ASB 139–648 

First Issue. Any reservoir with the letter ‘‘R’’ 

after the S/N is included in this requirement. 

If the measurement of the actuator cable 

between the face of the pull rod and the back 

of the valve cap exceeds 68.5 mm, before 

further flight, replace the reservoir. As an 

alternative to using the specified portions of 

ASB 139–648 First Issue, you may 

accomplish the valve pull rod inspection by 

following the Accomplishment Instructions, 

Part II, paragraphs 3. through 5.1, of 

Leonardo Helicopters ASB No. 139–648, 

Revision A, dated February 15, 2021 (ASB 

139–648 Rev A). 

Note 1 to paragraph (g)(3): An actuator 

cable, which is referenced in paragraphs 

(g)(3) and (4) of this AD, is also known as an 

actuation cable. 

(4) For helicopters with a RH or LH 

reservoir P/N 3G2560V01951 or P/N 

3G2560V01251 and with an S/N not listed in 

Table 1 of ASB 139–648 First Issue or Table 

1 of ASB 139–662 installed, within 25 hours 

TIS after December 4, 2020 (the effective date 

of AD 2020–23–07), inspect the actuator 

cable of each reservoir by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, Part III, 

paragraphs 3. through 5.1, of ASB 139–648 

First Issue. Any reservoir with the letter ‘‘R’’ 

after the S/N in included in this requirement. 

If the clearance between the sphere at the end 

of the actuator cable and the activation 

system exceeds 5.0 +0.00/¥2.0 mm, before 

further flight, adjust the actuator cable by 

following Annex A of ASB 139–648 First 

Issue. As an alternative to using the specified 

portions of ASB 139–648 First Issue, you may 

accomplish the actuator cable inspection and 

corrective action by following: 

(i) The Accomplishment Instructions, Part 

III, paragraphs 3. through 5.1, and Annex A, 

as applicable, of ASB 139–648 Rev A, or 

(ii) The Accomplishment Instructions, 

paragraphs 4 through 4.3.1, and Annex A, as 

applicable, of ASB 139–662. 

(5) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install reservoir P/N 3G2560V01951 or 

P/N 3G2560V01251 with an S/N listed in 

Table 1 of ASB 139–648 First Issue, Table 1 

of ASB 139–648 Rev A, or Table 1 of ASB 

139–662 on any helicopter. Any reservoir 

with the letter ‘‘R’’ after the S/N is excluded 

from this requirement. 

(6) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install a reservoir P/N 3G2560V01951 or 

P/N 3G2560V01251 with an S/N other than 

an S/N listed in Table 1 of ASB 139–648 First 

Issue, Table 1 of ASB 139–648 Rev A, or 

Table 1 of ASB 139–662, on any helicopter 

unless you have complied with the 

requirements in paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) of 

this AD, as applicable to your helicopter. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the International Validation 

Branch, send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR730-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, 

COS Program Management Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & 

Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart 

Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone (516) 228–7323; email 

Darren.Gassetto@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, 

Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, 

Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di 

Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39–0331– 

225074; fax +39–0331–229046; or at https:// 

customerportal.leonardocompany.com/enUS/. You may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, 

TX 76177. For information on the availability 

of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222– 

5110. 

(3) The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD 2021–0054, dated February 25, 

2021. You may view the EASA AD on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov in 

Docket No. FAA–2021–1174. 

Issued on January 3, 2022. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00057 Filed 1–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0152] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirement, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Full-Service Community Schools 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Full-Service 

Community Schools (FSCS) program, 

Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The 

Department is taking this action to 

support the successful implementation 

of this critical program and build 

additional evidence to share with the 

field. The Department may use these 

priorities, requirement, definitions, and 

selection criteria for competitions in FY 

2022 and later years. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 11, 2022. 

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 ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about the proposed 

priorities, requirement, selection 

criteria, and definitions, address them to 

Elson Nash, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E246, Washington, DC 20202. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1Harkavy, I. (2017). John Dewey and the 

Community School Idea. In L. Benson. Knowledge 

for Social Change: Bacon, Dewey and the 

Revolutionary Transformation of Research 

Universities in the Twenty-First Century (pp.42–67), 

Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

2Brookings Institution’s Task Force for the Next 

Generation Community Schools (2021). Addressing 

inequality in education with a next generation of 

community schools: A blueprint for mayors, states, 

and the federal government. 

3Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). ‘‘We’re One 

Team’’: Examining Community School 

Implementation Strategies in Oakland. Education 

Sciences, 6(4), 26. MDPI AG. Retrieved from https:// 

dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030026. 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elson Nash, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E246, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 260–2655. Email: 

FSCS@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:

Invitation to Comment: Community 

schools serve as centers of the 

community, connecting students and 

families to vital resources that can help 

them thrive. Importantly, community 

schools expand learning and 

enrichment opportunities for both 

students and parents alike, and promote 

family and community engagement in 

education, which ultimately can bolster 

students’ success. 

This document reflects full-service 

community schools program 

improvements based on lessons learned 

over the last decade, including 

addressing the increased mental and 

behavioral health needs among school 

community members, to improve 

program implementation and 

evaluation. 

The community schools field has 

been successful over the years 

expanding community schools.1

Practitioners and policy makers at the 

local, state, and national levels have 

embraced the community schools 

approach to address critical needs of 

children, recognizing that academic 

opportunities and success can be 

impacted by factors such as 

neighborhood poverty, access to health 

and social services, including mental 

and behavioral health services and 

supports, and family stressors. 

Evidence-based community school 

approaches can help mitigate the impact 

of these factors in ways that support 

student success.2

Through proposed priorities and an 

enhanced application requirement, the 

Department hopes to encourage 

applications to include a plan to 

successfully implement the ‘‘pillars of a 

full-service community school’’ (as 

defined in this document). In addition, 

the Department seeks to continuously 

improve program implementation 

quality at the site level. The Department 

also seeks to codify and enhance the 

definitions, and selection criteria to 

coincide with improvements to the 

overall purpose and structure of the 

FSCS program. Lastly, to continue to 

build the evidence to support program 

quality and improvement, we propose to 

include a priority that allows for a 

national evaluation of the program. 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding the proposed priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

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 Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. Due to the COVID–19 

pandemic, the Department buildings are 

currently not open to the public. 

However, upon reopening, you may also 

inspect the comments in person at 400 

Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246, 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday of each week 

except Federal holidays. Please contact 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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, 

requirement, 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 FSCS 

program provides support for the 

planning, implementation, and 

operation of full-service community 

schools that improve the coordination, 

integration, accessibility, and 

effectiveness of services for children 

and families, particularly for children 

attending schools with concentrated 

poverty, including rural schools. The 

FSCS program is authorized under Title 

IV through Community Support for 

School Success, sections 4621–4623 and 

4625(a) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, as amended 

(ESEA). 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7271– 

7273, 7275. 

Proposed Priorities 

This document contains the following 

five proposed priorities: 

Proposed Priority 1—Capacity 

Building and Development Grants; 

Proposed Priority 2—Multi-Local 

Educational Agency Grants; 

Proposed Priority 3—State Scaling 

Grants; 

Proposed Priority 4—Participation in 

the National Evaluation; and 

Proposed Priority 5—Evidence-Based 

Integrated Student Supports. 

Background: Over the last five years, 

the FSCS program experienced rapid 

growth as grantees expanded program 

implementation to multiple schools and 

districts. Grantees adopted varied 

approaches to size and scope, with a 

range of experiences and outcomes. 

Those grantees with the most success 

provided clear guidance to the schools 

and partners on program 

implementation, staff training, support 

for teachers, and continuous 

improvement. This was particularly true 

with the 2016 study by the Gardner 

Center 3 on the implementation of the 

community school approach by the 

2014 FSCS grantee Oakland Unified 

School District. In Oakland, across 33 

schools, school staff, school leadership, 

and community partners focused on 

four competencies when addressing the 

needs of students: Comprehensiveness, 

collaboration, coherence, and 

commitment. The results included 

reductions in suspensions and chronic 

absenteeism and improved academic 

engagement. 

Proposed priorities 1 through 3 would 

allow the Department to award grants to 

projects at different stages of 

development, from capacity-building to 

scaling full- service community schools 

approaches where the community and 

education leadership are ready to scale. 

These stages represent points of entry at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 1711 

4Maier, A., J. Daniel, J. Oakes, and L. Lam. 

‘‘Community Schools as an Effective School 

Improvement Strategy: A Review of the Evidence.’’ 

Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2017. 

5For example, see: 

Adams, C. (2010). ‘‘Improving Conditions for 

Learning in High Poverty Elementary Schools: 

Evidence from the Tulsa Area Community Schools 

Initiative (TACSI).’’ Norman, OK: University of 

Oklahoma. 

Durham, R.E., and Connoly, F.(2016). ‘‘Baltimore 

Community Schools: Promise & Progress.’’ 

Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research 

Consortium, 2016. 

Somers, M., and Haider, Z. (2017). ‘‘Using 

Integrated Student Support to Keep Kids in School. 

A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Communities 

In Schools, New York, NY: MDRC. 

Johnston, W., Engberg, J., Opper, I., SontagPadilla, L. and Xenakis, L. (2020). ‘‘Illustrating the 

Promise of Community Schools: An Assessment of 

the Impact of the New York City Community 

Schools Initiative.’’ Sponsored by the New York 

Mayor’s Office of Economic Opportunity. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Olson, L.S.(2014). ‘‘A First Look at Community 

Schools in Baltimore.’’ Baltimore, MD: Baltimore 

Education Research Consortium. 

Somers, M.A, and Haider, Z.(2017). ‘‘Using 

Integrated Student Supports to Keep Kids in 

School: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of 

Communities in Schools.’’ New York: MDRC. 

6Moore, K.A., Lantos, H., Jones, R., Schindler, A., 

Belford, J., & Sacks, V. (2017). Making the Grade: 

A Progress Report and Next Steps for Integrated 

Student Supports. Child Trends. (childtrends.org). 

Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., and Lam, L. (2017). 

Community Schools as an Effective School 

Improvement Strategy: A Review of the Evidence. 

(learningpolicyinstitute.org). 

7 DC, HI, and PR may apply for Statewide grants. 

the local, district, region, and state level 

to strategically scale the community 

school approach based on the readiness 

of the consortium applying for the grant. 

Although scaling the approach is 

important, equally important is 

retaining high quality implementation 

and fidelity to the approach which 

includes the pillars of full-service 

community schools. The four pillars of 

full- service community schools (as 

defined in this notice) are integrated 

student supports, expanded learning 

opportunities, active family and 

community engagements, and 

collaborative leadership and practices. 

There is some evidence that 

implementing all pillars of full-service 

community schools is associated with a 

range of positive outcomes for students 

and families.4 As the field continues to 

evolve, it is important to expand this 

body of evidence with additional, 

rigorously designed evaluations. Of the 

studies that assess the effects of 

community schools using a randomized 

controlled trial or quasi-experimental 

design, all examined the effects of a 

single community school, the effects of 

multiple community schools within a 

single city/metropolitan area, or the 

effects within 1–2 states.5

Key opportunities for next steps 

include rigorous evaluation of 

community schools across a wide range 

of cities and states. The Department 

proposes Priority 4 to provide the 

option to institute the first ever national 

evaluation of the FSCS program. 

The Department proposes Priority 5 to 

support high quality initiative design 

and implementation. A body of research 

demonstrates that evidence-based 

integrated student support models 

positively impact students’ school 

progress, attendance, and mathematics 

achievement.6 These models offer a 

process for connecting students to 

personalized, comprehensive services in 

a systematic manner. Incorporation of a 

proven integrated student support 

model would enhance the impact of the 

FSCS program on students. Under this 

proposed priority, we include the four 

tiers of evidence outlined in ESEA, and 

the Department may choose which tier 

or tiers to use in a notice inviting 

applications for FSCS grants. 

Proposed Priority 1—Capacity 

Building and Development Grants. 

Projects that propose to conduct initial 

development and coordination activities 

that leverage the findings of their needs 

assessment to develop the 

infrastructure, activities, and 

partnerships to implement and sustain 

full- service community schools in two 

or more schools through extensive 

community engagement and gathering 

data on initial outcomes. 

Proposed Priority 2—Multi-Local 

Educational Agency (LEA) Grants. 

Projects that propose to implement fullservice community schools in two or 

more LEAs within the same state. 

Proposed Priority 3—FSCS State 

Scaling Grants.7

Projects in partnership with an SEA 

that propose to initiate, support, and 

expand full-service community schools 

in six or more LEAs across the state 

where there is a commitment to sustain 

the program beyond two years after the 

term of the grant. 

Proposed Priority 4—Participation in 

the National Evaluation. 

Projects in which the applicant agrees 

to: 

(1) Carry out the FSCS grant in a 

manner consistent with a randomized 

controlled trial evaluation design 

developed by the Department and its 

national evaluator; 

(2) Propose at least four schools to 

potentially receive grant funding in the 

national evaluation. The proposed 

schools can be elementary, middle, and/ 

or high schools. 

Note: From among the proposed 

schools, applicants may designate one 

group of two or more schools that serve 

the same grade levels as ‘‘highest need,’’ 

and if the applicant receives a grant, the 

national evaluation will ensure that at 

least one of the schools in the group 

receives FSCS funding. 

(3) Not currently be fully 

implementing all four pillars of fullservice community schools (as defined 

in this notice) in any of the schools 

proposed for the grant; 

(4) Consent to the evaluator’s random 

assignment of approximately one-half of 

the schools proposed by the applicant to 

receive funding and begin implementing 

the FSCS approach; and the other half 

of schools to not receive funding from 

any FSCS grant for three years following 

random assignment; 

(5) Not promote or begin using grant 

funds for the implementation of the 

FSCS approach in any proposed schools 

until the grantee receives notification 

from the national evaluator about the 

random assignment of its schools to 

receive FSCS grant funding or not; and 

(6) Cooperate, consistent with 

applicable privacy requirements, with 

evaluation data collection activities, 

including: Surveys of grantee directors, 

principals of both groups of proposed 

schools (those randomly assigned to 

receive grant funding and schools 

assigned to not receive grant funding), 

and a representative sample of parents/ 

guardians of students attending the two 

groups of grantee schools; and provision 

of district administrative records on 

educators (e.g., credentials, experience) 

and students (e.g., academic assessment 

scores, course taking and credit 

accumulation, attendance) in the two 

groups of grantee schools. These data 

collections will be carried out at 

multiple points over the grant period. 

Proposed Priority 5—Evidence-Based 

Integrated Student Supports. 

Projects that propose adoption of an 

evidence-based model to provide 

integrated student supports in their 

implementation at one or more of the 

following tiers: 

(a) Demonstrates a rationale; 

(b) Promising evidence; 

(c) Moderate evidence; or 

(d) Strong evidence. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 Requirement 

Background: To enhance the quality 

of implementation of full-service 

community schools the Department 

proposes that each application address 

the four pillars of full-service 

community schools. The four pillars are: 

(1) Integrated student supports that 

address out-of-school barriers to 

learning through partnerships with 

social and health service agencies and 

providers; (2) expanded and enriched 

learning time and opportunities; (3) 

active family and community 

engagement; and (4) collaborative 

leadership and practices that build a 

culture of professional learning, 

collective trust, and shared 

responsibility. 

The Department proposes this 

application requirement to be used in 

conjunction with those set out in 

Section 4625(a) of the ESEA. The 

proposed application requirement is 

intended to: (1) Assist applicants with 

creating and clearly presenting elements 

of high-quality full-service community 

schools; (2) emphasize the critical role 

and direct involvement of school 

partners, including community based 

organizations, families, educators, and 

staff, in identifying and implementing 

solutions needed to improve 

educational opportunities and academic 

outcomes; (3) ensure that applicants 

have a clear knowledge of the assets and 

needs in the schools and communities 

to be served as demonstrated by the 

applicant’s initial needs assessment and 

plan; and (4) communicate to families 

that the combination of supports, rich 

learning environment and collaboration 

with school leadership will create the 

best conditions to meet the needs of 

their child. The Department expects that 

the proposed requirement will not only 

improve the application and review 

process but also improve program 

outcomes. 

Through each of the FSCS 

competitions over the last ten years, the 

program recognized the need for 

applications to more clearly represent 

information such as presentation of 

services, demonstration of needs, and 

connection to the classroom. These 

improvements will help increase the 

likelihood that the proposed project 

addresses all identified needs and 

connects the services and community 

assets to the schools. It will also help 

peer reviewers’ evaluation of services, 

partners, and collaborations with school 

leadership. 

Proposed Application Requirement 

The Department proposes the 

following application requirement for 

this program. We may apply this 

requirement in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Proposed Application Requirement: 

An applicant must, in addition to 

providing the information and 

assurances required by Section 4625(a) 

of the ESEA, provide the following: 

In addressing the application 

requirements set out in Section 4625(a) 

of the ESEA, applicants must address 

the essential pillars of full-service 

community schools (as defined in this 

notice). 

Projects must describe the pillars of 

full-service community schools that 

they have in place or how they will 

establish these pillars, or how they will 

implement these supports with partners, 

including community-based 

organization, and collaborating with 

school leadership and staff. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background: To ensure a common 

understanding of the proposed 

priorities, requirement, and selection 

criteria, we propose the following 

definitions that are critical to the policy 

and statutory purposes of the FSCS 

program. We propose these definitions 

to clarify expectations for eligible 

entities applying for FSCS program 

grants and to ensure that the review 

process for applications for FSCS grants 

remains as transparent as possible. 

Proposed Definitions: The Department 

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. 

Pillars of Full-Service Community 

Schools means all of the following: 

(A) Integrated student supports at a 

community school that provide in- and 

out-of-school support for students, 

address well-being, and address out-ofschool barriers to learning through 

partnerships with social and health 

service agencies, including mental and 

behavioral health agencies and 

providers, and coordinated by a 

community school coordinator, which 

may include— 

(i) Medical, dental, vision care, and 

mental and behavioral health services, 

including mental health literacy for 

students and staff; and 

(ii) Individuals to assist with housing, 

transportation, nutrition, citizenship 

preparation, or criminal justice issues 

and other services. 

(B) Expanded and enriched learning 

time and opportunities, through 

evidence-based strategies, including 

before-school, after-school, duringschool, weekend, and summer programs 

that provide additional academic 

instruction, individualized academic 

support, enrichment activities, or 

learning opportunities, for students at a 

community school that— 

(i) May emphasize real-world project 

based learning in which students can 

apply their learning to contexts that are 

relevant and engaging; and 

(ii) May include art, music, drama, 

creative writing, hands-on experience 

with engineering or science (including 

computer science), career and technical 

education, tutoring that is aligned with 

classroom success and homework help, 

and recreational programs that enhance 

and are consistent with the school’s 

curriculum. 

(C) Active family and community 

engagement that— 

(i) Brings parents and families of 

students at the community school and 

in the community into the school as 

partners in students’ education, 

including meaningfully involving 

parents and families in the community 

school’s decision-making processes; 

(ii) Makes the community school a 

hub for services, activities, and 

programs, for students, families, and 

members of the neighborhood that the 

community school serves; 

(iii) Provides adults with desired 

educational opportunities; and 

(iv) Provides centralized supports for 

families and communities in 

community schools, which may include 

English as a second language classes, 

citizenship preparation, computer skills, 

art, housing assistance, child abuse and 

neglect prevention supports, health and 

mental health literacy programs, digital 

literacy training, or other programs that 

bring community members into a school 

building for meetings, events, or 

programming. 

(D) Collaborative leadership and 

practices that build a culture of 

professional learning, collective trust, 

and shared responsibility for each 

community school using strategies 

that— 

(i) Shall, at a minimum, include a 

school-based leadership team, a 

community school coordinator, and a 

community-wide leadership team; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 1713 

(ii) May include other leadership or 

governance teams, community school 

steering committees, or other 

community coalitions, educator learning 

communities, and other staff to manage 

the multiple, complex joint work of 

school and community organizations. 

Broadly representative consortium 

means stakeholders representing broad 

groups of people working together for 

the best interest of children; such 

stakeholders may include, but are not 

limited to schools, nonprofits, 

government, philanthropy, and the 

business community. 

History of effectiveness means an 

eligible entity demonstrating the ability 

to successfully implement programs and 

policies. Such programs and policies 

must include but shall not be limited to 

successfully implementing with other 

organizations grants, policies, and 

programs for students from high need 

schools (as defined in ESEA section 

2221). 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background: Since the original FSCS 

grant competition in FY 2008, the 

Department has held four additional 

competitions (FY 2010, 2014, 2018, and 

2019). Our experience with 

administering these competitions, 

including feedback from peer reviewers, 

applicants, funded grantees, and 

experts, demonstrates the need to use 

program-specific selection criteria to 

evaluate specific program elements. 

Proposed Selection Criteria: The 

Department proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting applications 

or the application package or both we 

will announce the maximum possible 

points assigned to each criterion. 

(a) The extent to which the design of 

the proposed project reflects relevant 

and evidence-based findings from 

existing literature, and includes a highquality plan for project implementation 

integrating the four pillars of full-service 

community schools and the use of 

appropriate evaluation methods to 

ensure successful achievement of 

project objectives. 

(b) The extent to which the applicant 

will ensure that a diversity of 

perspectives is brought to bear in the 

design and operation of the proposed 

project, including those of families, 

educators and staff, beneficiaries of 

services, school leadership, and 

community leadership. 

(c) The extent to which the grantee 

has plans for a full-time coordinator at 

each school, includes a plan to sustain 

the position beyond the grant period, 

and a description of how this position 

will serve to integrate, coordinate, and 

deliver pipeline services at each school. 

(d) The extent to which the grantee 

has a consortium broadly representative 

of community stakeholders and needs. 

(e) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates a history of effectiveness. 

Final Priority, Requirement, 

Definitions and Selection Criteria: We 

will announce the final priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirement, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this document and other 

information available to the Department. 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use these priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through 

a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 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 

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 the proposed 

priorities, requirement, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

The proposed priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

contain information collection 

requirements that are approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1894–0006; 

the proposed priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria do not 

affect the currently approved data 

collection. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define proprietary 

institutions as small businesses if they 

are independently owned and operated, 

are not dominant in their field of 

operation, and have total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit 

institutions are defined as small entities 

if they are independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in their field 

of operation. Public institutions are 

defined as small organizations if they 

are operated by a government 

overseeing a population below 50,000. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action would affect are LEAs, 

including charter schools that operate as 

LEAs under State law; institutions of 

higher education; public or private 

nonprofit organizations; and Indian 

Tribes or Tribal organizations. We 

believe that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the proposed priorities, 

requirement, definitions, and selection 

criteria would be limited to paperwork 

burden related to preparing an 

application and that the benefits of 

these proposed priorities, requirement, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. 

Participation in the FSCS program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirement, definitions, and 

selection criteria would impose no 

burden on small entities unless they 

applied for funding under the program. 

We expect that in determining whether 

to apply for FSCS program funds, an 

eligible entity would evaluate the 

requirements of preparing an 

application and any associated costs 

and weigh them against the benefits 

likely to be achieved by receiving an 

FSCS program grant. An eligible entity 

will probably apply only if it determines 

that the likely benefits exceed the costs 

of preparing an application. 

We believe that the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would not impose any 

additional burden on a small entity 

applying for a grant than the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. We invite 

comments from small eligible entities as 

to whether they believe this proposed 

regulatory action would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, request evidence to support 

that belief. 

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: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document and a copy of the 

application package in an accessible 

format. The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or another accessible 

format. 

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 is available 

via the Federal Digital System at 

www.govinfo.gov. 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. 

Ian Rosenblum, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Programs, delegated the authority to perform 

the functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00453 Filed 1–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1