Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14197 

on May 14, 2022, and from 9 a.m. to 6 

p.m. on May 15, 2022. 

Dated: March 8, 2022. 

David E. O’Connell, 

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

Port Maryland-National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05258 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2022–OESE–0006] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Expanding Opportunity Through 

Quality Charter Schools Program 

(CSP)—Grants to State Entities (SE 

Grants); Grants to Charter 

Management Organizations for the 

Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); 

and Grants to Charter School 

Developers for the Opening of New 

Charter Schools and for the 

Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools (Developer 

Grants) 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

CSP SE Grants, CMO Grants, and 

Developer Grants, Assistance Listing 

Numbers (ALNs) 84.282A, 84.282B, 

84.282E, and 84.282M. We may use one 

or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for grant competitions under 

these programs in fiscal year (FY) 2022 

and later years. We take this action to 

create results-driven policies to help 

promote positive student outcomes, 

student and staff diversity, educator and 

community empowerment, promising 

practices, and accountability, including 

fiscal transparency and responsibility, 

in charter schools supported with CSP 

funds, which can serve as models for 

other charter schools. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 13, 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 ‘‘Help.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to 

Porscheoy Brice, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E209, 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: 

Porscheoy Brice, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E209, Washington, DC 20202– 

5970. Telephone: (202) 260–0968. 

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: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to clearly identify the specific 

section of the proposed priority, 

requirement, definition, or selection 

criteria that each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria by accessing Regulations.gov. 

You may also inspect the comments in 

person. Please contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT to make arrangements to 

inspect the comments in person. 

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 Programs: SE Grants, CMO 

Grants, and Developer Grants are three 

of six CSP grant programs that support 

various activities critical to the 

successful creation and implementation 

of charter schools. The major purposes 

of the CSP are to expand opportunities 

for all students, particularly 

traditionally underserved students, to 

attend charter schools and meet 

challenging State academic standards; 

provide financial assistance for the 

planning, program design, and initial 

implementation of charter schools; 

increase the number of high-quality 

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; aid States in providing 

facilities support to charter schools; and 

support efforts to strengthen the charter 

school authorizing process. 

SE Grants (ALN 84.282A) comprise 

the largest portion of CSP funds. These 

competitive grants are awarded to State 

entities (SEs) that, in turn, award 

competitive subgrants to eligible 

applicants for the purpose of opening 

new charter schools and replicating and 

expanding high-quality charter schools. 

Eligible applicants are charter school 

developers that have applied to an 

authorized public chartering agency to 

operate a charter school and have 

provided adequate and timely notice to 

that authority. A developer is 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14198 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 4310(5) and (6) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 

U.S.C. 7221i(5) and (6)) (www.congress.gov/114/ 

plaws/publ95/PLAW–114publ95.pdf). 

2 Kahlenberg, Richard D. & Potter, Halley (2014). 

Restoring Shanker’s Vision for Charter Schools | 

American Federation of Teachers (aft.org) 

www.aft.org/ae/winter2014–2015/kahlenberg_

potter. 

3Baker, Timberly L., Wise, Jillian, Kelley, 

Gwendolyn, and Skiba, Russell J. (2016). Identifying 

Barriers: Creating Solutions https://files.eric.ed.gov/ 

fulltext/EJ1124003.pdf. 

4National Resource Center on Charter School 

Finance & Governance. Enhancing_Charter_Schools 

Through Parent Involvement https://

charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/ 

field_publication_attachment/Enhancing_Charter_

Schools-AmyBiehlHS.pdf. 

5National Charter School Resource Center (2021). 

How Charter Schools Can Leverage Community 

Assets through Partnerships https://

charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/ 

field_publication_attachment/How Charter Schools 

Can LeverageCommunity Assets through 

Partnerships.pdf. 

of the local community in which a 

charter school project will be carried 

out.1 For-profit organizations are 

ineligible to apply for grants or 

subgrants under the CSP. 

In addition to making subgrants to 

eligible applicants to open new charter 

schools and to replicate or expand highquality charter schools, SE grantees may 

use grant funds to provide technical 

assistance to eligible applicants and 

authorized public chartering agencies in 

opening new charter schools and 

replicating and expanding high-quality 

charter schools; and work with 

authorized public chartering agencies in 

the State to improve authorizing quality, 

including developing capacity for, and 

conducting, fiscal oversight and 

auditing of charter schools. SE Grant 

funds may also be used for grant 

administration, which may include 

technical assistance and monitoring of 

subgrants for performance and fiscal 

and regulatory compliance, as required 

under 2 CFR 200.332(d). 

If a State does not have an active CSP 

SE Grant, the Department may award 

Developer Grants (ALNs 84.282B and 

84.282E) to eligible applicants in the 

State on a competitive basis to enable 

them to open new charter schools or to 

replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools. Through CMO Grants (ALN 

84.282M), the Department provides 

funds to non-profit charter management 

organizations (CMOs) on a competitive 

basis to enable them to replicate or 

expand one or more high-quality charter 

schools. 

CSP SE Grants, CMO Grants, and 

Developer Grants are intended to 

support charter schools that serve 

elementary or secondary school 

students. Funds also may be used to 

serve students in early childhood 

education programs or postsecondary 

students. Section 4310 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 

defines ‘‘replicate’’ as opening 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; and 

‘‘expand’’ as significantly increasing 

enrollment or adding one or more 

grades to a high-quality charter school 

(20 U.S.C. 7221i(9) and (7)). Section 

4310 defines ‘‘high-quality charter 

school,’’ in pertinent part, as a charter 

school that shows evidence of strong 

academic results, which may include 

strong student academic growth, as 

determined by a State; has no significant 

issues in the areas of student safety, 

financial and operational management, 

or statutory or regulatory compliance; 

and has demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement, including 

graduation rates where applicable, for 

all students served by the charter school 

and for each of the subgroups of 

students defined in section 1111(c)(2) of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(8)). 

For CMO Grants and Developer 

Grants, these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are intended to supplement the 

regulatory priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria in: 

Final 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 (CMO 

NFP), published in the Federal Register 

on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61532), 

and Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Expanding Opportunity Through 

Quality Charter Schools Program; Grants 

to Charter School Developers for the 

Opening of New Charter Schools and for 

the Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools (Developer 

NFP), published in the Federal Register 

on July 3, 2019 (84 FR 31726). 

Program Authority: Title IV, part C of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221–7221j). 

Proposed Priorities 

Proposed Priorities Applicable to 

CMO Grants and Developer Grants: We 

propose two priorities for CMO Grants 

and Developer Grants. 

Proposed Priority 1—Promoting HighQuality Educator- and CommunityCentered Charter Schools to Support 

Underserved Students. 

Background: Charter schools were 

envisioned to drive the creation of 

innovative approaches to teaching and 

learning for all students while being 

held accountable for academic 

performance.2 The original proponents 

of charter schools anticipated that 

charter schools would be shaped by 

educators and offer opportunities for 

developing and sharing new 

instructional methods and resources 

that address the needs of students and 

families in the community. While that is 

the case in some charter schools, in 

others, teachers, parents, and 

community leaders have expressed 

concerns about not being included as 

active participants in charter school 

decision-making.3 Such concerns may 

be due, in part, to limited requirements 

for community engagement. According 

to the National Resource Center on 

Charter School Finance and 

Governance, ‘‘most laws require only 

peripheral participation, such as 

garnering parent support for the school 

during the application process or 

keeping parents informed of student 

performance. These participation 

requirements do not take full advantage 

of charter schools’ potential to draw on 

the knowledge and expertise of their 

parent community.’’ 4 Similarly, some 

charter schools may not fully engage 

other community members and 

organizations that are also wellpositioned to help assess the 

educational aspirations and needs of 

students living in their neighborhoods 

and can offer important contributions to 

help improve the academic, financial, 

and organizational or operational 

performance of the school.5 Charter 

schools and CMOs may have needs that 

community members and organizations 

can help meet, including, for example, 

specific teacher areas of expertise; 

facilities for activities such as arts, 

sports, or enrichment; or serving their 

students’ well-being and readiness to 

learn. Similarly, community 

partnerships can expand options for 

courses that may not be available in a 

school, enhance independent study or 

skill development opportunities (e.g., 

career and technical education or workbased learning), and build sustainability 

of program offerings. Community 

partnerships can also assess the 

receptiveness of a community to a new 

charter school. 

Educator- and community-centered 

charter schools can provide 

opportunities to meet the needs of all 

students, particularly underserved 

students. Studies show that when 

teachers are engaged in educational 

decision-making and are given an 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14199 

6Rimm-Kaufman, Sara and Sandilos, Lia (2010). 

Improving students’ relationships with teachers 

(apa.org) www.apa.org/education-career/k12/ 

relationships. 

7Safal Partners: Kern, Nora (2016). Intentionally 

Diverse Charter Schools: A Toolkit for Charter 

School Leaders https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/ 

sites/default/files/files/field_publication_

attachment/NCSRC%20Intentionally%20Diverse

%20Charter%20School%20Toolkit.pdf. 

8Chait, Robin (2019). Bridging the Divide: 

Collaboration Between Traditional Public Schools 

and Charter Schools. www.ested.org/westedinsights/collaboration-between-traditional-publicschools-and-charter-schools/. 

9 DeArmond, Michael, Cooley Nelson, Elizabeth, 

and Bruns, Angela (2015). The Best of Both Worlds: 

Can District-Charter Co-Location Be a Win-Win? 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559807.pdf. 

10 Yatsko, Sarah, Cooley Nelson, Elizabeth, and 

Lake, Robin (2013). District-Charter Collaboration 

Compact: Interim Report. https://crpe.org/districtcharter-collaboration-compact-interim-report/. 

opportunity to collaborate with 

administrators, it promotes a better 

learning environment for students that 

leads to increased student achievement 

and college and career readiness.6 For 

example, charter schools can ensure 

meaningful input of educators by 

appointing multiple educators to their 

governing boards or purposefully 

developing instructional and 

operational models that proactively 

solicit and respond to educators’ 

feedback. Additionally, communitycentered charter schools are built on 

relationships that may enable them to be 

more transparent and collaborative in 

their design and practices, including 

proactively recruiting, enrolling, and 

retaining students of diverse 

backgrounds and abilities.7 Communitycentered charter schools may have 

established partnerships with local 

organizations and informal and formal 

processes to engage with and solicit 

input from local stakeholders on a 

regular basis. 

Proposed Priority: 

(a) Under this priority, an applicant 

must propose to open a new charter 

school, or replicate or expand a highquality charter school, that is developed 

and implemented— 

(1) With meaningful and ongoing 

engagement with current and former 

educators, including current and former 

teachers, including in founding the 

school, board governance, school-level 

decision-making related to curriculum 

and instruction, and day-to-day 

operations of the school; and 

(2) Using a community-centered 

approach that includes an assessment of 

community assets, informs the 

development of the charter school, and 

includes the implementation of 

protocols and practices designed to 

ensure that the charter school will use 

and interact with community assets on 

an ongoing basis to create and maintain 

strong community ties. 

(b) In its application, an applicant 

must provide a high-quality plan that 

demonstrates how its proposed project 

would meet the requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this priority, 

accompanied by a timetable with 

milestones. 

Proposed Priority 2—Charter School 

and Traditional Public School or 

District Collaborations That Benefit 

Students and Families 

Background: Research has shown that 

collaborations among charter schools 

and traditional public schools or 

traditional school districts (chartertraditional collaborations) have the 

potential to improve the quality of 

charter schools and traditional public 

schools.8 In order to benefit the public 

school system as a whole, and students 

and families in the community, chartertraditional collaborations require 

significant investments of time and 

resources to address commonly shared 

barriers and challenges in both charter 

schools and traditional public schools. 

Successful charter-traditional 

collaborations can lead to informationsharing about best practices for 

developing systems and processes that 

benefit all families and students served 

by the members of the collaboration.9

Some examples of charter-traditional 

collaborations that benefit students and 

families include: Sharing curriculum 

resources and instructional materials, 

including opportunities for students to 

have increased access to a more 

comprehensive set of course offerings; 

creating systems and structures for the 

delivery of shared, effective teacher and 

leader professional development and 

instructional practices, including 

through professional learning 

communities; developing strong 

principal pipeline programs; and shared 

transportation systems that increase 

student access to and diversity within 

schools while lessening the financial 

burden all schools encounter when 

providing transportation.10

Under the proposed priority, an 

applicant must propose to collaborate 

with at least one traditional public 

school or traditional school district in 

an activity that would be beneficial to 

all partners in the collaboration and 

lead to increased educational 

opportunities and improved student 

outcomes. 

Proposed Priority: 

(a) Under this priority, an applicant 

must propose to collaborate with at least 

one traditional public school or 

traditional school district in an activity 

that is designed to benefit students and 

families served by each member of the 

collaboration, designed to lead to 

increased educational opportunities and 

improved student outcomes, and 

includes implementation of— 

(1) One or more of the following 

services and resources: 

(i) Curricular and instructional 

resources or academic course offerings. 

(ii) Professional development 

opportunities for teachers and leaders, 

which may include professional 

learning communities, opportunities for 

teachers to earn additional 

certifications, such as in a high need 

area or National Board Certification, and 

partnerships with educator preparation 

programs to support teaching 

residencies. 

(iii) Evidence-based (as defined in 

section 8101(21) of the ESEA) practices 

to improve academic performance for 

underserved students. 

(iv) Policies and practices to create 

safe, supportive, and inclusive learning 

environments, including systems of 

positive behavioral intervention and 

support; and 

(2) One or more of the following 

initiatives: 

(i) Transparent enrollment and 

retention practices and processes that 

include clear and consistent disclosure 

of policies or requirements (e.g., 

discipline policies, purchasing and 

wearing specific uniforms and other 

fees, or caregiver participation), and any 

services that are or are not provided, 

that could impact a family’s ability to 

enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., 

transportation services or participation 

in the National School Lunch Program). 

(ii) A shared transportation plan and 

system that reduces transportation costs 

for partners in the collaboration and 

takes into consideration various 

transportation options, including public 

transportation and district-provided or 

shared transportation options, costsharing or free or reduced-cost fare 

options, and any distance 

considerations for prioritized bus 

services. 

(iii) Other collaborations designed to 

address a significant barrier or challenge 

faced by both charter schools and 

traditional public schools and improve 

student outcomes. 

(b) In its application, an applicant 

must provide a letter from each 

partnering traditional public school or 

school district demonstrating a 

commitment to participate in the 

proposed charter-traditional 

collaboration. Within 45 days of 

receiving a grant award, the applicant 

must submit to the Department a written 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14200 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

agreement (e.g., Memorandum of 

Understanding), signed by officials 

authorized to sign on behalf of the 

charter school and each partnering 

traditional public school or school 

district, that— 

(1) Identifies and describes each 

member of the collaboration; 

(2) States the purpose and duration of 

the collaboration; 

(3) Describes the roles and 

responsibilities of each member of the 

collaboration, including key staff 

responsible for completing specific 

tasks; 

(4) Describes how the collaboration 

will benefit each member, including 

how it will benefit students and families 

affiliated with each member and lead to 

increased educational opportunities and 

improved student outcomes, and 

specific and measurable, if applicable, 

goals; 

(5) Describes the resources each 

member of the collaboration will 

contribute; and 

(6) Contains any other relevant 

information. 

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 Application Requirements 

Background: The ESEA requires SE 

Grant, CMO Grant, and Developer Grant 

applications to include specific 

information. In particular, SE Grant 

applications must address the 

application requirements in section 

4303(f) of the ESEA, CMO Grant 

applications must address the 

application requirements in section 

4305(b)(3) of the ESEA, and Developer 

Grant applications must address 

relevant application requirements in 

section 4303(f) of the ESEA. In addition 

to these statutory application 

requirements, we established additional 

application requirements for CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants in the 

CMO NFP and Developer NFP, 

respectively. 

As a supplement to the application 

requirements in the ESEA, CMO NFP, 

and Developer NFP, the Department 

proposes new application requirements 

and assurances to help ensure the 

creation of new charter schools, and the 

replication and expansion of highquality charter schools, that are: (1) 

Racially and socio-economically 

diverse; (2) driven by the needs of 

students and families in the community 

in which the charter school is or will be 

located; and (3) fiscally responsible and 

transparent, particularly with respect to 

contractual relationships with for-profit 

management organizations (also referred 

to as education management 

organizations (EMOs)). We reiterate that 

a charter school is, by definition, ‘‘a 

public school that . . . is operated 

under public supervision and 

direction,’’ and for-profit entities are 

ineligible to receive funding as a CSP 

project grantee or subgrantee (see 

section 4310(2)(B), (3), (4), and (5) of the 

ESEA). It is also a violation of CSP 

requirements for a grantee or subgrantee 

to relinquish full or substantial control 

of the charter school (and, thereby, the 

CSP project) to a for-profit management 

organization or other for-profit entity 

because, among other things, a grantee 

or subgrantee receiving CSP funds must 

establish and maintain proper internal 

controls and directly administer or 

supervise the administration of the 

project. See 2 CFR 200.302–303; and 34 

CFR 75.701 and 76.701. A grantee or 

subgrantee that enters into a contract for 

goods or services must comply with the 

Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 

200.317–200.327, and applicable 

conflict of interest requirements, 

including that no employee, officer, or 

agent of the charter school may 

participate in the selection, award, or 

administration of a contract supported 

by Federal funds if he or she has a real 

or apparent conflict of interest. 

Generally, the Department believes, 

based on experience administering the 

CSP, that the proposed application 

requirements and assurances would 

help facilitate the proper review and 

evaluation of CSP grant applications, 

thereby increasing the likelihood of 

successful grant and subgrant 

implementation. These proposed 

requirements and assurances would also 

help ensure that all students have access 

to high-quality, diverse, and equitable 

learning opportunities in their 

communities, which should be a goal of 

all public schools. 

High-performing charter school 

authorizers generally require applicants 

for a charter (i.e., to create a charter 

school) to present data on the academic 

achievement, demographics, and 

enrollment and retention rates of 

students in all surrounding public 

schools. These data help with assessing 

the extent to which the proposed charter 

school will meet the needs of, and 

enroll students that are representative 

of, the students in the community. 

Consistent with this part of the charter 

application process, we propose to 

require applicants for CMO Grants, 

Developer Grants, and subgrants under 

the SE Grant program to conduct a 

community impact analysis to inform 

the need, number, and types of charter 

schools to be created in a given 

community. The community impact 

analysis must describe how the plan for 

the proposed charter school takes into 

account the student demographics of the 

schools from which students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school. The community impact analysis 

must also describe the steps the charter 

school has taken or will take to ensure 

that the proposed charter school would 

not hamper, delay, or in any manner 

negatively affect any desegregation 

efforts in the public school districts 

from which students are, or would be, 

drawn or in which the charter school is 

or would be located, including efforts to 

comply with a court order, statutory 

obligation, or voluntary efforts to create 

and maintain desegregated public 

schools, and that it would not otherwise 

increase racial or socio-economic 

segregation or isolation in the schools 

from which the students are, or would 

be, drawn to attend the charter school. 

The focus of the community impact 

analysis on racial and socio-economic 

diversity builds on existing statutory 

and regulatory provisions that give 

priority to applicants that plan to 

operate or manage high-quality charter 

schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies 

(see section 4305(b)(5)(A) of the ESEA; 

CMO NFP at 61542; and Developer NFP 

at 31734). Please note that an applicant 

that proposes to operate or manage a 

charter school in a racially or socioeconomically segregated or isolated 

community still would be eligible to 

apply for funding, even if the student 

body of the charter school would be 

racially or socio-economically 

segregated or isolated due to community 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14201 

demographics. Such an applicant, like 

all other applicants, would be required 

to provide a community impact analysis 

describing how the plan for the 

proposed charter school takes into 

account the student demographics of the 

schools from which students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school, and the steps the applicant has 

taken or will take to ensure that the 

proposed charter school would not 

increase racial or socio-economic 

segregation or isolation in those schools. 

Further, as autonomous public 

schools that create their operational, 

curricular, and policy procedures, 

charter schools are well positioned to 

draw on the knowledge and expertise of 

families and other stakeholders in the 

community to help shape school 

practices. As with Proposed Priority 1, 

the proposed community impact 

analysis requirements are designed to 

ensure that families play an active role 

in informing decision-making regarding 

the need for charter schools in a specific 

community and to strengthen 

requirements regarding how the 

community is engaged and integrated in 

the charter school planning and 

approval process. 

Under section 4310(2)(B) of the ESEA, 

charter schools receiving CSP funds 

must be created by a developer as a 

public school or adapted by a developer 

from an existing public school and 

operated under public supervision and 

direction. While for-profit organizations 

are ineligible to apply for direct grants 

or subgrants under the CSP, some 

charter schools enter into contracts with 

for-profit EMOs for services. It is the 

responsibility of the grantee or 

subgrantee to ensure that such an 

agreement with an EMO is a contract, 

and not a subaward or subgrant, in 

accordance with 2 CFR 200.331. 

Arrangements under which a for-profit 

EMO, including a non-profit CMO 

operated by or on behalf of a for-profit 

entity, exercises full or substantial 

administrative control over the charter 

school (and, thereby, the CSP project) or 

over programmatic decisions are not 

permissible under CSP-funded projects, 

pursuant to 34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, 

which require grantees and subgrantees, 

respectively, to directly administer or 

supervise the administration of their 

projects. EMOs provide a variety of 

services to charter schools—from 

limited management and financial 

support services to whole-school 

package offerings. Some examples of 

impermissible delegations of 

administrative control include 

situations in which the EMO controls all 

or a substantial portion of grant or 

subgrant funds and expenditures, 

including making programmatic 

decisions (also referred to as ‘‘sweeps 

contracts’’); the EMO employs the 

school principal and a large proportion 

of the teachers; or the EMO makes 

decisions about curricula and 

instructional practices. 

We propose application requirements 

designed to ensure that any charter 

school that receives CSP funds and 

enters, or plans to enter, into a contract 

with an EMO complies with all 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

including applicable Federal 

procurement and conflict of interest 

standards in 2 CFR 200.317–200.327, 

and Federal regulations requiring 

grantees and subgrantees to establish 

and maintain effective internal and 

administrative control over the Federal 

award (2 CFR 200.303; and 34 CFR 

75.701 and 76.701). The proposed 

application requirements also are 

designed to ensure fiscal transparency 

surrounding these contracts by requiring 

applicants to address whether they have 

entered or plan to enter into a contract 

with a for-profit management 

organization and, if so, to provide 

detailed information regarding the terms 

of the contract. This includes the 

amount of any CSP funding that would 

be used to pay for services under the 

contract and information about the 

governing board members, individuals 

who have a financial interest in the 

management organization, and any 

perceived or actual conflicts of interests. 

Applicants would also address how the 

applicant will ensure that it makes all 

programmatic decisions, maintains 

control over all program funds, directly 

administers or supervises the 

administration of the grant or subgrant 

in accordance with 34 CFR 75.701 and 

76.701, and complies with the conflict 

of interest standards in 2 CFR 200.317– 

200.327. 

Under section 4310(6) of the ESEA, an 

eligible applicant is defined as a charter 

school developer that has (1) applied to 

an authorized public chartering agency 

to operate a charter school and (2) 

provided adequate and timely notice to 

that authority. As noted above, eligible 

applicants in States that do not have an 

active SE Grant may apply to the 

Department for a direct grant under the 

Developer Grant program. Non-profit 

CMOs are the only eligible entities 

under the CMO Grant program and 

usually serve as the developer and 

apply for the charter on behalf of the 

charter schools that they fund through 

their grant. Because an applicant need 

not have received a charter to be eligible 

to apply for a CSP grant, there is 

inherent risk of an applicant receiving a 

CSP grant but ultimately not having its 

charter application approved. Given this 

risk, we propose requirements to better 

inform the Department of these 

situations, including by providing the 

expected timeline from the authorized 

public chartering agency to provide a 

final decision on the charter application 

and identifying any planning costs 

expected to be incurred before such 

decision. This information can, in turn, 

be used by the Department to establish 

guardrails, such as through grant 

conditions, to minimize risk. 

Finally, to reinforce the proposed 

application requirements, we also 

propose assurances related to charter 

schools’ contracts with EMOs; subgrant 

awards; reporting requirements; racial 

and socio-economic diversity of 

students and teachers in the charter 

school, and the impact of the charter 

school on racial and socio-economic 

diversity in the public school district 

and schools from which students are, or 

will be, drawn to attend the charter 

school; and ensuring that CSP funding 

for implementation of a charter school 

is provided only when a charter has 

been approved and a school facility has 

been secured. 

We propose to apply one or more of 

the following application requirements 

in any year in which a competition is 

held under one or more of the following 

CSP grant programs: SE Grants, CMO 

Grants, or Developer Grants. We identify 

the program applicability for each 

proposed application requirement. 

Proposed Requirements Applicable to 

CMO Grants and Developer Grants. 

Proposed Requirement 1 for CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants: 

Each applicant must provide a 

community impact analysis that 

demonstrates that there is sufficient 

demand for the proposed project and 

that the proposed project would serve 

the interests and meet the needs of 

students and families in the community 

or communities from which students 

are, or will be, drawn to attend the 

charter school, and that includes the 

following: 

(a) Descriptions of the community 

support and unmet demand for the 

charter school, including any overenrollment of existing public schools or 

other information that demonstrates 

demand for the charter school, such as 

evidence of demand for specialized 

instructional approaches. 

(b) Descriptions of the targeted 

student and staff demographics and how 

the applicant plans to establish and 

maintain racially and socioeconomically diverse student and staff 

populations, including proposed 

strategies (that are consistent with 

applicable legal requirements) to recruit, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14202 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

11Please note that all public schools are obligated 

under Federal civil rights laws to ensure 

meaningful communication with limited English 

proficient parents and effective communication 

with individuals with disabilities. 28 CFR 35.160. 

See generally Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); 

34 CFR part 100. 

enroll, and retain a diverse student body 

and to recruit, hire, develop, and retain 

a diverse staff and talent pipeline at all 

levels (including leadership positions). 

(c) Analyses of publicly available 

information and data, including 

citations and sources, on academic 

achievement, demographics, and 

enrollment trends of students in the 

public schools and school districts from 

which students are, or will be, drawn to 

attend the charter school, and an 

explanation of how the area from which 

the proposed charter school would 

reasonably expect to draw students was 

determined. 

(d) An analysis of the proposed 

charter school’s demographic 

projections and a comparison of such 

projections with the demographics of 

public schools and school districts from 

which students are, or will be, drawn to 

attend the charter school. 

(e) Evidence that demonstrates that 

the number of charter schools proposed 

to be opened, replicated, or expanded 

under the grant does not exceed the 

number of public schools needed to 

accommodate the demand in the 

community, including projected 

enrollment for the charter schools based 

on analysis of community needs and 

unmet demand and any supporting 

documents for the methodology and 

calculations used to determine the 

number of schools proposed to be 

opened, replicated, or expanded. 

(f) A robust family and community 

engagement plan designed to ensure the 

active participation of families and the 

community and that includes the 

following: 

(1) How families and the community 

are or were engaged in determining the 

vision and design for the charter school, 

including specific examples of how 

families’ and the community’s input 

was, or is expected to be, incorporated 

into the vision and design for the 

charter school. 

(2) How the charter school will 

meaningfully engage with both families 

and the community to create strong and 

ongoing partnerships. 

(3) How the charter school will foster 

a collaborative culture that involves the 

families of all students, including 

underserved students, in school 

decision-making on an ongoing basis. 

(4) How the charter school’s 

enrollment and recruitment process will 

engage and accommodate families from 

various backgrounds, including by 

holding enrollment and recruitment 

events on weekends or during nonstandard work hours, making translators 

available, and providing enrollment and 

recruitment information in widely 

accessible formats (e.g., hard copy and 

online in multiple languages, large print 

or braille for visually-impaired 

individuals) through widely available 

and transparent means (e.g., online and 

at community locations).11

(5) How the charter school has 

engaged or will engage families and the 

community to develop an instructional 

model that will serve the targeted 

diverse student population and their 

families effectively. 

(g) How the plans for the operation of 

the charter school will support and 

reflect the needs of students and 

families in the community, including 

considerations for how the school’s 

location, or anticipated location if a 

facility has not been secured, will 

facilitate access for the targeted diverse 

student population (e.g., access to 

public transportation or other 

transportation options, the 

demographics of neighborhoods within 

walking distance of the school, and 

transportation plans and costs for 

students who are not able to walk or use 

public transportation to access the 

school). 

(h) A description of the steps the 

applicant has taken or will take to 

ensure that the proposed charter school 

would not hamper, delay, or in any 

manner negatively affect any 

desegregation efforts in the public 

school districts from which students 

are, or would be, drawn to attend the 

charter school, including efforts to 

comply with a court order, statutory 

obligation, or voluntary efforts to create 

and maintain desegregated public 

schools, and that it would not otherwise 

increase racial or socio-economic 

segregation or isolation in the schools 

from which the students are, or would 

be, drawn to attend the charter school. 

Proposed Requirement 2 for CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants: 

For any existing or proposed contract 

with a for-profit management 

organization (including a non-profit 

management organization operated by 

or on behalf of a for-profit entity), 

without regard to whether the 

management organization exercises full 

or substantial administrative control 

over the charter school or the CSP 

project, the applicant must include— 

(a) The name and contact information 

of the management organization; 

(b) A detailed description of the terms 

of the contract, including the cost (i.e., 

fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing 

costs or fees) and percentage such cost 

represents of the school’s total funding, 

amount of CSP funds proposed to be 

used towards such cost (with an 

explanation of why such cost is 

reasonable), duration, roles and 

responsibilities of the management 

organization, and steps the applicant 

will take to ensure that it pays fair 

market value for any services or other 

items purchased or leased from the 

management organization, makes all 

programmatic decisions, maintains 

control over all CSP funds, and directly 

administers or supervises the 

administration of the grant in 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.701; 

(c) A description of any business or 

financial relationship between the 

charter school developer and the 

management organization, including 

payments, contract terms, and any 

property owned, operated, or controlled 

by the management organization or 

related individuals or entities that will 

be used by the charter school; 

(d) The name and contact information 

for each member of the governing board 

of the proposed charter school; 

(e) A list of all individuals who have 

a financial interest in the management 

organization, including— 

(1) Descriptions of any affiliations or 

conflicts of interest for charter school 

staff, board members, and management 

organization staff; 

(2) A list of all related individuals or 

entities providing contractual services 

to the charter school and the nature of 

those services; and 

(3) Detailed descriptions of any actual 

or perceived conflicts of interest, the 

steps the applicant took or will take to 

avoid any actual or perceived conflicts 

of interest, and how the applicant 

resolved or will resolve any actual or 

perceived conflicts of interest to ensure 

compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c); 

(f) An explanation of how the 

applicant will ensure that the 

management contract is severable, 

severing the management contract will 

not cause the proposed charter school to 

close, the duration of the management 

contract will not extend beyond the 

expiration date of the school’s charter, 

and renewal of the management contract 

will not occur without approval and 

affirmative action by the governing 

board of the charter school; and 

(g) A description of the steps the 

applicant will take to ensure that it 

maintains control over all student 

records and has a process in place to 

provide those records to another public 

school or school district in a timely 

manner upon the transfer of a student 

from the charter school to another 

public school, including due to closure 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14203 

12Please note that all public schools are obligated 

under Federal civil rights laws to ensure 

Continued 

of the charter school, in accordance 

with section 4308 of the ESEA. 

Proposed Requirement 3 for CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants: 

An applicant that has applied to an 

authorized public chartering agency to 

operate a new, expanded, or replicated 

charter school, and has not yet received 

approval, must provide— 

(a) A signed and dated copy of its 

application to the authorized public 

chartering agency; 

(b) Documentation that it has 

provided notice to the authorized public 

chartering agency that it has applied for 

a CSP grant; 

(c) A timeline from the authorized 

public chartering agency for providing a 

final decision on the charter 

application; and 

(d) Any planning costs in its proposed 

budget that are expected to be incurred 

prior to the date the authorized public 

chartering agency expects to issue a 

decision on the applicant’s charter 

application. 

Proposed Requirements Applicable to 

SE Grants: 

Background: Applicants for subgrants 

under the CSP SE Grant program are 

required to provide, as part of their 

subgrant application, a description of 

the roles and responsibilities of eligible 

applicants, partner organizations, and 

CMOs, including the administrative and 

contractual roles and responsibilities of 

such partners (section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(II) 

of the ESEA). Another goal of these 

proposed requirements is to ensure that 

CSP SE grantees are well positioned to 

oversee a high-quality peer review 

process as they make subgrant awards in 

their respective States to support 

opening new charter schools and 

replicating and expanding high-quality 

charter schools. Also, we want to ensure 

that, after making subgrant awards in 

their States, SE grantees fulfill their 

responsibility to monitor charter school 

subgrant award recipients, as required 

under 2 CFR 200.332(d). SEs are 

required to provide descriptions of how 

the SE will review applications from 

eligible applicants (section 

4303(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the ESEA) as well as 

its plan to adequately monitor subgrant 

recipients under the SE’s program 

(section 4303(g)(1)(D)(i) of the ESEA). 

The CSP SE Grant program supports 

many charter schools nationally, and 

the proposed new requirements for SE 

applicants to create subgrant application 

review and subgrantee monitoring plans 

present an opportunity for peer 

reviewers to evaluate the quality of 

these plans not only to inform funding 

decisions, but also to enhance the 

quality of charter schools in the areas of 

transparency, oversight, and 

accountability. 

The proposed application 

requirements, which would supplement 

existing statutory requirements for SEs, 

would: Require subgrant applicants to 

provide a community impact analysis 

and submit more detailed information 

regarding the nature of any management 

contracts with for-profit EMOs, 

including non-profit CMOs operated by 

or on behalf of for-profit entities, as we 

are proposing to require of applicants 

for CMO Grants and Developer Grants; 

require SEs to give priority in making 

subgrants to charter schools that are 

educator-led and community-centered 

or that participate in collaborations 

among charter schools and traditional 

public schools or school districts 

(charter-traditional-district 

collaborations), as with the above 

priorities for CMO and Developer; 

require SEs to provide justification and 

supporting evidence for the planned 

number of subgrants and subgrant 

award amounts to ensure proposed 

projects are reasonable; and, as 

discussed in the previous paragraph, 

strengthen the requirements related to 

SEs’ review of subgrant applications and 

monitoring of subgrants in their States. 

Proposed Requirement 1 for SE 

Grants: 

Each subgrant applicant must provide 

a community impact analysis that 

demonstrates that there is sufficient 

demand for the proposed project and 

that the proposed project would serve 

the interests and meet the needs of 

students and families in the community 

or communities from which the 

students are, or will be, drawn to attend 

the charter school, and that includes the 

following: 

(a) Descriptions of the community 

support and unmet demand for the 

charter school, including any overenrollment of existing public schools or 

other information that demonstrates 

demand for the charter school, such as 

evidence of demand for specialized 

instructional approaches. 

(b) Descriptions of the targeted 

student and staff demographics and how 

the applicant plans to establish and 

maintain racially and socioeconomically diverse student and staff 

populations, including proposed 

strategies (consistent with applicable 

legal requirements) to recruit, enroll, 

and retain a diverse student body and to 

recruit, hire, develop, and retain a 

diverse staff and talent pipeline at all 

levels (including leadership positions). 

(c) Analyses of publicly available 

information and data on student 

academic achievement, demographics, 

and enrollment trends of students in 

schools in the public school district and 

schools from which students are, or will 

be, drawn or in which the charter school 

is or will be located, including citations 

and sources and an explanation of how 

the area from which the proposed 

charter school would reasonably expect 

to draw students was determined. 

(d) An analysis of the proposed 

charter school’s demographic 

projections and a comparison of such 

projections with the demographics of 

public schools and school districts from 

which students are, or will be, drawn to 

attend the charter school. 

(e) Evidence that demonstrates that 

the number of charter schools proposed 

to be opened, replicated, or expanded 

under the grant does not exceed the 

number of public schools needed to 

accommodate the demand in the 

community, including projected 

enrollment for the charter schools based 

on analysis of community needs and 

unmet demand and any supporting 

documents for the methodology and 

calculations used to determine the 

number of schools proposed to be 

opened, replicated, or expanded. 

(f) A robust family and community 

engagement plan designed to ensure the 

active participation of families and the 

community that includes the following: 

(1) How families and the community 

are or were engaged in determining the 

vision and design for the charter school, 

including specific examples of how 

families’ and the community’s input 

was, or is expected to be, incorporated 

into the vision and design for the 

charter school. 

(2) How the charter school will 

meaningfully engage with both families 

and the community to create strong and 

ongoing partnerships. 

(3) How the charter school will foster 

a collaborative culture that involves the 

families of all students, including 

underserved students, in school 

decision-making on an ongoing basis. 

(4) How the charter school’s 

enrollment and recruitment processes 

will engage and accommodate families 

from various backgrounds, including by 

holding enrollment and recruitment 

events on weekends or non-standard 

work hours, making translators 

available, and providing enrollment and 

recruitment information in widely 

accessible formats (e.g., hard copy and 

online in multiple languages, large print 

or braille for visually-impaired 

individuals) through widely available 

and transparent means (e.g., online and 

at community locations).12


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14204 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

meaningful communication with limited English 

proficient parents and effective communication 

with individuals with disabilities. 28 CFR 35.160. 

See generally Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); 

34 CFR part 100. 

(5) How the charter school has 

engaged or will engage families and the 

community to develop an instructional 

model to best serve the targeted diverse 

student population and their families. 

(g) How the plans for the operation of 

the charter school will support and 

reflect the needs of students and 

families in the community, including 

considerations for how the school’s 

location, or anticipated location if a 

facility has not been secured, will 

facilitate access for the targeted diverse 

student population (e.g., access to 

public transportation or other 

transportation options, the 

demographics of neighborhoods within 

walking distance of the school, and 

transportation plans and costs for 

students who are not able to walk or use 

public transportation to access the 

school). 

(h) A description of the steps the 

applicant has taken or will take to 

ensure that the proposed charter school 

would not hamper, delay, or in any 

manner negatively affect any 

desegregation efforts in the public 

school districts from which students 

are, or would be, drawn to attend the 

charter school, including efforts to 

comply with a court order, statutory 

obligation, or voluntary efforts to create 

and maintain desegregated public 

schools, and that it would not otherwise 

increase racial or socio-economic 

segregation or isolation in the schools 

from which the students are, or would 

be, drawn to attend the charter school. 

Proposed Requirement 2 for SE 

Grants: 

For any existing or proposed contract 

with a for-profit management 

organization (including a non-profit 

management organization operated by 

or on behalf of a for-profit entity), 

without regard to whether the 

management organization exercises full 

or substantial administrative control 

over the charter school or the CSP 

project, the subgrant applicant must 

include— 

(a) The name and contact information 

of the management organization; 

(b) A detailed description of the terms 

of the contract, including the cost (i.e., 

fixed costs and estimates of any ongoing 

costs or fees) and percentage such cost 

represents of the school’s total funding, 

amount of CSP funds proposed to be 

used towards such cost (with an 

explanation of why such cost is 

reasonable), duration, roles and 

responsibilities of the management 

organization, and steps the applicant 

will take to ensure that it pays fair 

market value for any services or other 

items purchased or leased from the 

management organization, makes all 

programmatic decisions, maintains 

control over all CSP funds, and directly 

administers or supervises the 

administration of the subgrant in 

accordance with 34 CFR 76.701; 

(c) A description of any business or 

financial relationship between the 

charter school developer and the 

management organization, including 

payments, contract terms, and any 

property owned, operated, or controlled 

by the management organization or 

related individuals or entities to be used 

by the charter school; 

(d) The name and contact information 

for each member of the governing board 

of the proposed charter school; 

(e) A list of all individuals who have 

a financial interest in the management 

organization, including— 

(1) Descriptions of any affiliations or 

conflicts of interest for charter school 

staff, board members, and management 

organization staff; 

(2) A list of all related individuals or 

entities providing contractual services 

to the charter school and the nature of 

those services; and 

(3) Detailed descriptions of any actual 

or perceived conflicts of interest, the 

steps the applicant took or will take to 

avoid any actual or perceived conflicts 

of interest, and how the applicant 

resolved or will resolve any actual or 

perceived conflicts of interest to ensure 

compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(c); 

(f) An explanation of how the 

applicant will ensure that the 

management contract is severable, 

severing the management contract will 

not cause the proposed charter school to 

close, the duration of the management 

contract will not extend beyond the 

expiration date of the school’s charter, 

and renewal of the management contract 

will not occur without approval and 

affirmative action by the governing 

board of the charter school; and 

(g) A description of the steps the 

applicant will take to ensure that it 

maintains control over all student 

records and has a process in place to 

provide those records to another public 

school or school district in a timely 

manner upon the transfer of a student 

from the charter school to another 

public school in accordance with 

section 4308 of the ESEA. 

Proposed Requirement 3 for SE 

Grants: 

Each SE applicant must provide a 

detailed description of how it will 

review applications from eligible 

applicants, including— 

(a) How eligibility will be determined; 

(b) How peer reviewers will be 

recruited and selected, including efforts 

the applicant will make to recruit peer 

reviewers from diverse backgrounds and 

underrepresented groups; 

(c) How subgrant applications will be 

reviewed and evaluated; 

(d) How cost analyses and budget 

reviews will be conducted to ensure that 

costs are necessary, reasonable, and 

allocable to the subgrant; 

(e) How applicants will be assessed 

for risk (i.e., fiscal, programmatic, 

compliance); and 

(f) How funding decisions will be 

made. 

Proposed Requirement 4 for SE 

Grants: 

Each SE applicant must provide a 

detailed description, including a 

timeline, of how the SE will monitor 

and report on subgrant performance in 

accordance with 2 CFR 200.329, and 

address and mitigate subgrantee risk, 

including— 

(a) How subgrantees will be selected 

for in-depth monitoring, including 

factors that indicate higher risk (e.g., 

charter schools that have management 

contracts with for-profit EMOs, virtual 

charter schools, and charter schools 

with a history of poor performance); 

(b) How identified subgrantee risk 

will be addressed; 

(c) How subgrantee expenditures will 

be monitored; 

(d) How monitoring for progress and 

compliance will be conducted and who 

will conduct the monitoring; 

(e) How monitors will be trained; 

(f) How monitoring findings will be 

shared with subgrantees; 

(g) How corrective action plans will 

be used to resolve monitoring findings; 

and 

(h) How the SE will ensure 

transparency so that monitoring 

findings and corrective action plans are 

available to families and the public. 

Proposed Requirement 5 for SE 

Grants: 

Each SE applicant must provide 

explanations and supporting documents 

for the methodology and calculations 

used to determine the number of 

proposed subgrant awards and the 

average subgrant award amount. 

Proposed Requirement 6 for SE 

Grants: 

Each SE applicant must describe how 

the SE will give priority in awarding 

subgrants to eligible applicants that 

propose projects that include one or 

more of the following: 

(a) A community-centered approach 

that informs the planning, design, and 

implementation of the charter school 

and includes— 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14205 

(1) An assessment of community 

assets; 

(2) Meaningful and ongoing 

engagement with families, educators, 

and other members of the community, 

including in areas related to board 

governance and school-level decisionmaking related to curriculum and 

instruction; and 

(3) The implementation of protocols 

and practices designed to ensure that 

the charter school will use and interact 

with community assets on an ongoing 

basis to create and maintain strong 

community ties. 

(b) A collaboration with at least one 

traditional public school or school 

district in an activity that is designed to 

benefit students and families served by 

each member of the collaboration, 

designed to lead to increased 

educational opportunities and improved 

student outcomes, and includes 

implementation of— 

(1) One or more of the following 

services and resources: 

(i) Curricular and instructional 

resources or academic course offerings. 

(ii) Professional development 

opportunities for teachers and leaders, 

which may include professional 

learning communities, opportunities for 

teachers to earn additional 

certifications, such as in a high need 

area or National Board Certification, and 

partnerships with educator preparation 

programs to support teaching 

residencies. 

(iii) Evidence-based (as defined in 

section 8101 of the ESEA) practices to 

improve academic performance for 

underserved students. 

(iv) Policies and practices to create 

safe, supportive, and inclusive learning 

environments, including systems of 

positive behavioral intervention and 

support; and 

(2) One or more of the following 

initiatives: 

(i) Common enrollment and retention 

practices that include, as part of the 

enrollment process, disclosure of 

policies or requirements (e.g., discipline 

policies, purchasing and wearing 

specific uniforms and other fees, or 

caregiver participation), and any 

services that are or are not provided, 

that could impact a family’s ability to 

enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., 

transportation services or participation 

in the National School Lunch Program). 

(ii) A shared transportation plan and 

system that reduces transportation costs 

for partners in the collaboration and 

takes into consideration various 

transportation options, including public 

transportation and district-provided or 

shared transportation options, costsharing or free or reduced-cost fare 

options, and any distance 

considerations for prioritized bus 

services. 

(iii) Other collaborations designed to 

address a significant barrier or challenge 

faced by both charter schools and 

traditional public schools and improve 

student outcomes. 

Proposed Assurances 

Background: The ESEA requires CSP 

SE Grant, CMO Grant, and Developer 

Grant applications to include applicable 

assurances from section 4303(f)(2) of the 

ESEA. In addition, CMO Grant 

applications must include the assurance 

required under section 4305(b)(3)(C) of 

the ESEA. 

As discussed in the background for 

the Proposed Application Requirements 

section, for-profit EMOs are ineligible to 

apply for direct grants or subgrants 

under the CSP. The Department is 

aware, however, that some charter 

schools enter into contracts with EMOs. 

Under these circumstances, it is the 

responsibility of the grantee or 

subgrantee to ensure that an agreement 

with an EMO is a contract, and not a 

subaward or subgrant as per 2 CFR 

200.331. In addition, a contract for 

goods or services with a for-profit entity 

must comply with the Federal 

procurement standards at 2 CFR 

200.317–327, and applicable conflict of 

interest requirements, including that no 

employee, officer, or agent of the charter 

school may participate in the selection, 

award, or administration of any contract 

supported by Federal funds if a real or 

apparent conflict of interest exists. 

EMOs provide a variety of services to 

charter schools—from supplemental 

management and financial support 

services to whole-school package 

offerings. Under these management 

contracts between charter schools and 

EMOs, the EMO often exercises full 

administrative control over the charter 

school project, which, as noted above, 

violates CSP requirements. Examples of 

impermissible delegations of 

administrative control include 

situations where the EMO controls all or 

a substantial portion of subgrant funds 

and expenditures, including making 

programmatic decisions (also referred to 

as ‘‘sweeps contracts’’); the EMO 

employs the school principal and a large 

proportion of the teachers; or the EMO 

makes decisions about curricula and 

instructional practices. Such 

arrangements under which a for-profit 

EMO, including a non-profit 

management organization operated by 

or on behalf of a for-profit entity, 

exercises full administrative control 

over the charter school (and, thereby, 

the CSP project) are not permissible 

under CSP-funded projects, pursuant to 

34 CFR 75.701 and 76.701, which 

require that the grantee or subgrantee 

directly administer or supervise the 

administration of the project; and 2 CFR 

200.303, which requires that the grantee 

or subgrantee establish and maintain 

proper internal control over the Federal 

award that provides reasonable 

assurance that the non-Federal entity is 

managing the Federal award in 

compliance with Federal statutes, 

regulations, and the terms and 

conditions of the grant. See also 2 CFR 

200.302 (financial management). 

Consistent with the proposed 

application requirements for CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants, and for 

subgrants under the SE Grant program, 

we propose assurances to ensure that 

any charter school that receives CSP 

funds and enters, or plans to enter, into 

a contract with an EMO, including a 

non-profit CMO operated by or on 

behalf of a for-profit entity, complies 

with all relevant statutory and 

regulatory requirements, including 

applicable Federal procurement 

standards in 2 CFR 200.317–327, 

Federal regulations governing conflicts 

of interest, and Department regulations 

requiring grantees and subgrantees to 

directly administer or supervise the 

administration of the project and retain 

control over programmatic decisions. 

The proposed assurances also are 

designed to ensure transparency, 

including fiscal transparency, 

surrounding these contracts. 

In addition, CSP applicants (including 

CSP SE subgrant applicants) may 

receive CSP funds for planning a charter 

school before receiving an approved 

charter or securing a facility—factors 

that may prevent a charter school from 

ever opening. Accordingly, we are also 

proposing assurances to provide greater 

public transparency with CSP funding 

decisions and to address the risk of CSP 

implementation funds supporting 

grantees and subgrantees that are unable 

to open the charter school or secure a 

facility for the charter school in a timely 

manner. 

Also, we are proposing an assurance 

relating to transparency in admission 

and enrollment policies, such as 

requirements for uniforms, volunteer 

hours, fees, or other obligations, that 

may create barriers that impact a 

family’s ability to enroll or remain 

enrolled in the charter school. This 

assurance is designed to ensure that 

families are aware of financial and other 

obligations prior to enrolling in the 

charter school. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14206 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Assurances Applicable to 

SE Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants: 

(a) Each charter school receiving CSP 

funding must provide an assurance that 

it has not and will not enter into a 

contract with a for-profit management 

organization, including a non-profit 

management organization operated by 

or on behalf of a for-profit entity, under 

which the management organization 

exercises full or substantial 

administrative control over the charter 

school and, thereby, the CSP project. 

(b) Each charter school receiving CSP 

funding must provide an assurance that 

any management contract between the 

charter school and a for-profit 

management organization, including a 

non-profit CMO operated by or on 

behalf of a for-profit entity, guarantees 

or will guarantee that— 

(1) The charter school maintains 

control over all CSP funds, makes all 

programmatic decisions, and directly 

administers or supervises the 

administration of the grant or subgrant; 

(2) The management organization 

does not exercise full or substantial 

administrative control over the charter 

school (and, thereby, the CSP project), 

except that this does not limit the ability 

of a charter school to enter into a 

contract with a management 

organization for the provision of 

services that do not constitute full or 

substantial control of the charter school 

project funded under the CSP (e.g., food 

services or payroll services) and that 

otherwise comply with statutory and 

regulatory requirements; 

(3) The charter school’s governing 

board has access to financial and other 

data pertaining to the charter school, the 

EMO, and any related entities; and 

(4) The charter school is in 

compliance with applicable Federal and 

State laws and regulations governing 

conflicts of interest, and there are no 

actual or perceived conflicts of interest 

between the charter school and the 

management organization. 

(c) Each SE or CMO that has provided 

CSP funding to a charter school, and 

each charter school receiving CSP 

funding, must provide an assurance that 

it will post on its website, on an annual 

basis, a copy of any management 

contract between the charter school and 

a for-profit management organization, 

including a non-profit CMO operated by 

or on behalf of a for-profit entity, and 

report information on such contract to 

the Department (or, in the case of a 

charter school that receives CSP funding 

through an SE Grant, to the SE), 

including— 

(1) The name and contact information 

of the management organization; 

(2) A detailed description of the terms 

of the contract, including the cost and 

percentage such cost represents of the 

charter school’s total funding, amount of 

CSP funds proposed to be used towards 

such cost (with an explanation of why 

such cost is reasonable), duration, roles 

and responsibilities of the management 

organization, and the steps the charter 

school is taking to ensure that it makes 

all programmatic decisions, maintains 

control over all CSP funds, and directly 

administers or supervises the 

administration of the grant or subgrant 

in accordance with 34 CFR 75.701 and 

76.701; 

(3) A description of any business or 

financial relationship between the 

charter school developer or CMO and 

the management organization, including 

payments, contract terms, and any 

property owned, operated, or controlled 

by the management organization or 

related individuals or entities to be used 

by the charter school; 

(4) The names and contact 

information of members of the boards of 

directors of the charter school; 

(5) A list of all individuals who have 

a financial interest in the management 

organization, including descriptions of 

any affiliations or conflicts of interest 

for charter school staff, board members, 

and management organization staff, and 

a list of all related individuals or 

entities providing contractual services 

to the charter school and the nature of 

those services; 

(6) A detailed description of any 

actual or perceived conflicts of interest, 

the steps the charter school took or will 

take to avoid any actual or perceived 

conflicts of interest, and how the charter 

school resolved or will resolve any 

actual or perceived conflicts of interest 

to ensure compliance with 2 CFR 

200.318(c); and 

(7) A description of how the charter 

school ensured that such contract is 

severable and that a change in 

management companies will not cause 

the proposed charter school to close. 

(d) Each charter school receiving CSP 

funding must provide an assurance that 

it will disclose, as part of the enrollment 

process, any policies or requirements 

(e.g., purchasing and wearing specific 

uniforms and other fees, or 

requirements for family participation), 

and any services that are or are not 

provided, that could impact a family’s 

ability to enroll or remain enrolled (e.g., 

transportation services or participation 

in the National School Lunch Program). 

(e) Each applicant for a CMO Grant, 

Developer Grant, or subgrant under the 

SE Grant program, without regard to 

whether there are any desegregation 

efforts in the public school districts in 

the surrounding area, must provide an 

assurance that it (or, in the case of an 

applicant for a CMO Grant, each charter 

school it proposes to fund) will hold or 

participate in a public hearing in the 

school districts or communities in 

which the proposed charter school will 

be located to obtain information and 

feedback regarding the potential impact 

of the charter school, including the 

steps the charter school has taken or 

will take to ensure that the proposed 

charter school would not hamper, delay, 

or in any manner negatively affect any 

desegregation efforts in the public 

school districts from which students 

are, or would be, drawn to attend the 

charter school, including efforts to 

comply with a court order, statutory 

obligation, or voluntary efforts to create 

and maintain desegregated public 

schools, and that it would not otherwise 

increase racial or socio-economic 

segregation or isolation in the schools 

from which the students are, or would 

be, drawn to attend the charter school. 

Applicants must ensure that the hearing 

(and notice thereof) is accessible to 

individuals with disabilities and limited 

English proficient individuals as 

required by law, actively solicit 

participation in the hearing (i.e., 

provide widespread and timely notice of 

the hearing), make good faith efforts to 

accommodate as many people as 

possible (e.g., hold the hearing at a 

convenient time for families and 

provide virtual participation options), 

and submit a summary of the comments 

received as part of the application. 

(f) Each applicant for an SE Grant or 

subgrant, CMO Grant, or Developer 

Grant must provide an assurance that it 

will not use or provide implementation 

funds for a charter school until after the 

charter school has received a charter 

from an authorized public chartering 

agency and has a contract, lease, 

mortgage, or other documentation 

indicating that it has a facility in which 

to operate. 

Proposed Assurances Applicable to 

CSP SE Grants and CMO Grants: 

Each applicant must provide an 

assurance that, within 30 days of the 

date of the grant award notification 

(GAN), or the date of the subgrant award 

notification for SE Grants, the grantee or 

subgrantee will post on its website a list 

of the charter schools slated to receive 

CSP funds, including the following for 

each school: 

(a) The name, address, and grades 

served. 

(b) A description of the educational 

model. 

(c) If the charter school has contracted 

with a for-profit management 

organization, the name of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14207 

management organization, the amount 

of CSP funding the management 

organization will receive from the 

school, and a description of the services 

to be provided. 

(d) The grant or subgrant award 

amount, including any funding that has 

been approved for the current year and 

any additional years of the CSP grant for 

which the school will receive support. 

(e) The grant or subgrant application 

(redacted as necessary). 

(f) The peer review materials, 

including reviewer comments and 

scores (redacted as necessary) from the 

grant or subgrant competition. 

Proposed Definitions 

In addition to the definitions in 

section 4310 of the ESEA, the CMO 

NFP, and the Developer NFP, we 

propose the following definitions for 

CSP SE Grants, CMO Grants, and 

Developer Grants. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which a competition for new awards is 

held under one of these programs. 

Background: In order to ensure a 

common understanding of the proposed 

priorities and requirements, we propose 

definitions that are critical to the 

policies and statutory purposes of the 

CSP SE Grant, Developer Grant, and 

CMO Grant programs, including 

proposed definitions for ‘‘disconnected 

youth,’’ ‘‘educator,’’ and ‘‘underserved 

student’’ that are based on definitions of 

those terms from the Secretary’s 

Supplemental Priorities published in 

the Federal Register on December 10, 

2021 (86 FR 70612). We propose these 

definitions to clarify expectations for 

eligible entities applying for SE Grants, 

Developer Grants, and CMO Grants, and 

to ensure that the review process for 

applications for such grants is as 

transparent as possible. 

Proposed Definitions Applicable to SE 

Grants, CMO Grants, and Developer 

Grants: 

Community assets means resources 

that can be identified and mobilized to 

improve conditions in the charter 

school and community. These assets 

may include— 

(1) Human assets, including 

capacities, skills, knowledge base, and 

abilities of individuals within a 

community; 

(2) Social assets, including networks, 

organizations, businesses, and 

institutions that exist among and within 

groups and communities; and 

(3) Political assets, such as a group’s 

ability to influence the distribution of 

resources, financial and otherwise. 

Disconnected youth means an 

individual, between the ages 14 and 24, 

who may be from a low-income 

background, experiences homelessness, 

is in foster care, is involved in the 

justice system, or is not working or not 

enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) 

an educational institution. 

Educator means an individual who is 

an early learning educator, teacher, 

principal or other school leader, 

specialized instructional support 

personnel (e.g., school psychologist, 

counselor, school social worker, early 

intervention service personnel), 

paraprofessional, or faculty. 

Underserved student means a student 

in one or more of the following 

subgroups: 

(a) A student who is living in poverty 

or is served by schools with high 

concentrations of students living in 

poverty. 

(b) A student of color. 

(c) A student who is a member of a 

federally recognized Indian Tribe. 

(d) An English learner (as defined in 

section 8101 of the ESEA). 

(e) A child or student with a disability 

(as defined in section 8101 of the 

ESEA). 

(f) A disconnected youth. 

(g) A migrant student. 

(h) A student experiencing 

homelessness or housing insecurity. 

(i) A student who is in foster care. 

(j) A pregnant, parenting, or 

caregiving student. 

(k) A student impacted by the justice 

system, including a formerly 

incarcerated student. 

(l) A student performing significantly 

below grade level. 

Proposed Definition Applicable to SE 

Grants: 

Background: In addition to the 

proposed definitions for SE Grants, 

CMO Grants, and Developer Grants, we 

propose the following definition for CSP 

SE Grants only. We may apply this 

definition in any year in which a 

competition for new awards is held 

under the SE Grant program. 

We are proposing to adopt the 

definition of ‘‘educationally 

disadvantaged student’’ established in 

the CMO NFP and Developer NFP for 

use in the CSP SE Grants program. The 

proposed definition for ‘‘educationally 

disadvantaged student’’ is based on 

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

Proposed Definition: 

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, children with 

disabilities, migrant students, English 

learners, neglected or delinquent 

students, homeless students, and 

students who are in foster care. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background: We propose selection 

criteria that align with the proposed 

requirements and assurances, identify 

for peer reviewers the factors considered 

to be essential to conducting a highquality peer review, and are designed to 

aid in identifying the applicants most 

likely to succeed with implementing 

high-quality charter schools that are 

driven by the needs of families and their 

communities. These selection criteria 

would be used in addition to selection 

criteria in sections 4303(g)(1) and 

4305(b)(4) of the ESEA, the CMO NFP, 

the Developer NFP, and 34 CFR 75.210, 

as appropriate. We may apply one or 

more of these proposed selection criteria 

to applicable grant competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. In 

the notices inviting applications we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

Proposed Selection Criteria for CMO 

Grants and Developer Grants: 

(a) Quality of the Community Impact 

Analysis. The Secretary considers the 

quality of the community impact 

analysis for the proposed project. In 

determining the quality of the 

community impact analysis, the 

Secretary considers one or more of the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the 

community impact analysis 

demonstrates that the proposed charter 

school will address the needs of all 

students and families in the community, 

including underserved students; will 

ensure equitable access to diverse 

learning opportunities; and will not 

otherwise increase racial or socioeconomic segregation or isolation in the 

schools from which the students are, or 

would be, drawn to attend the charter 

school. 

(2) The extent to which the 

community impact analysis 

demonstrates that the proposed charter 

school has considered and mitigated, 

whenever possible, potential barriers to 

application, enrollment, and retention 

of students and families from diverse 

backgrounds. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

charter school is supported by families 

and the community, including the 

extent to which parents and other 

members of the community were 

engaged in determining the need and 

vision for the school and will continue 

to be engaged on an ongoing basis in 

school decision-making, including the 

academic, financial, organizational, and 

operational performance of the charter 

school. 

(b) Quality of the Charter School’s 

Management Plan. The Secretary 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14208 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

considers the quality of the management 

plan for the proposed project. In 

determining the quality of the 

management plan, the Secretary 

considers one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The adequacy of the applicant’s 

plan to maintain control over all CSP 

grant funds. 

(2) The adequacy of the applicant’s 

plan to make all programmatic 

decisions. 

(3) The adequacy of the applicant’s 

plan to administer or supervise the 

administration of the grant and maintain 

significant management or oversight 

responsibilities over the grant. 

Proposed Selection Criterion for SE 

Grants: 

(a) Quality of the Project Design. The 

Secretary considers the quality of the 

project design for the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the project 

design for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the quality of the 

SE’s process for awarding subgrants, 

including— 

(1) The extent to which the number of 

subgrant awards anticipated for each 

grant project year is supported by 

evidence of demand and need; and 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

average subgrant award amount is 

supported by evidence of the need of 

applicants. 

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 

responses to this document 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 proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, it must 

be determined 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. 

We believe that the benefits of this 

regulatory action outweigh any 

associated costs, which we believe 

would generally be minimal. While this 

action would impose cost-bearing 

application requirements on 

participating SE Grant, Developer Grant, 

and CMO Grant applicants and on SE 

subgrant applicants, we expect that 

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 CSP 

grants and subgrants are awarded to the 

entities that are most capable of 

expanding the number of high-quality 

charter schools available to our Nation’s 

students. 

We estimate costs associated with 

information collection requirements in 

the Paperwork Reduction Act section of 

this document. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: the public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14209 

13See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

The proposed application 

requirements and selection criteria 

relating to a community impact 

analysis, management contracts, and 

management plans contain information 

collection requirements. The 

Department is requesting paperwork 

clearance on the OMB 1810–NEW data 

collection associated with these 

proposed application requirements and 

selection criteria. That request will 

account for all burden hours and costs 

discussed within this section. Under the 

PRA, the Department has submitted 

these requirements to OMB for its 

review. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

In the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria we will display the control 

numbers assigned by OMB to any 

information collection requirements 

proposed in this NPP and adopted in 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

For the years that the Department 

holds SE Grant, CMO Grant, and 

Developer Grant competitions and that 

SEs hold subgrant competitions, we 

estimate that 365 applicants will apply 

and submit an application. We estimate 

that it will take each applicant 60 hours 

to complete and submit the application, 

including time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

The total burden hour estimate for this 

collection is 21,900 hours. At $97.28 per 

hour (using mean wages for Education 

and Childcare Administrators 13 and 

assuming the total cost of labor, 

including benefits and overhead, is 

equal to 200 percent of the mean wage 

rate), the total estimated cost for 365 

applicants to complete a SE grant 

application, CMO grant application, 

Developer grant application, or SE 

subgrant application is approximately 

$2,130,432. 

Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the 

Department is soliciting comments on 

the information collection through this 

document. Between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register, OMB is required to 

make a decision concerning the 

collections of information contained in 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives 

your comments full consideration, it is 

important that OMB receives your 

comments on these Information 

Collection Requests by April 13, 2022. 

Comments related to the information 

collection requirements for these 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria must 

be submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov by selecting the 

Docket ID number ED–2022–OESE–0006 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery by referencing the 

docket ID number and the title of the 

information collection request at the top 

of your comment. Comments submitted 

by postal mail or delivery should be 

addressed to the PRA Coordinator of the 

Strategic Collections and Clearance 

Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W208D, 

Washington, DC 20202–8240. 

Note: The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the 

Department review all comments related 

to the information collections 

requirements posted at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Collection of Information 

Information collection activity 

Estimated 

number of 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total 

estimated 

burden hours 

Estimated cost 

at an hourly 

rate of $97.28 

Application ....................................................................................................... 365 60 21,900 $2,130,432 

We consider your comments on these 

proposed collections of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collections are necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collections, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

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 

charter schools, including charter 

schools that operate as LEAs under State 

law; and public or private nonprofit 

organizations. We believe that the costs 

imposed on an applicant by the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

be limited to paperwork burden related 

to preparing an application and that the 

benefits of these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would outweigh any costs 

incurred by the applicant. 

Participation in the CSP is voluntary. 

For this reason, the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would impose no burden on 

small entities unless they applied for 

funding under the program. We expect 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14210 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

that in determining whether to apply for 

CSP 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 CSP 

grant. An eligible entity will probably 

apply only if it determines that the 

likely benefits exceed the costs of 

preparing an application. 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would impose some additional 

burden on a small entity applying for a 

grant relative to the burden the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. 

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 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 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 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. 

Ruth E. Ryder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Programs, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05463 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2020–0730; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2020–0731; EPA–R05–OAR–2022– 

0004; FRL–9629–01–R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; 

Redesignation of the Detroit, MI Area 

to Attainment of the 2015 Ozone 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Detroit, Michigan area is attaining 

the 2015 primary and secondary ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), and to act in accordance with 

a request from the Michigan Department 

of Environment, Great Lakes, and 

Energy (EGLE) to redesignate the area to 

attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

because the request meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Detroit 

area includes Livingston, Macomb, 

Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, 

and Wayne Counties. EGLE submitted 

this request on January 3, 2022. EPA is 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Michigan State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), the State’s plan for maintaining 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS through 2035 in 

the Detroit area. EPA is also proposing 

to approve Michigan’s 2025 and 2035 

volatile organic compound (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) for the 

Detroit area and initiating the adequacy 

review process for these budgets. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of separate December 18, 2020, 

submittals as meeting the applicable 

requirements for a base year emissions 

inventory and emissions statement 

program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2020–0730, EPA–R05–OAR– 

2020–0731, or EPA–R05–OAR–2022– 

0004 at http://www.regulations.gov, or 

via email to arra.sarah@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489, 

svingen.eric@epa.gov. The EPA Region 5 

office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays and facility closures 

due to COVID–19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Detroit 

nonattainment area is attaining the 2015 

ozone NAAQS, based on quality-assured 

and certified monitoring data for 2019– 

2021, and that the Detroit area has met 

the requirements for redesignation 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

EPA is thus proposing to change the 

legal designation of the Detroit area 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1