[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41694-41698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2013-OESE-0062; CFDA Number: 84.215T]
Final Priority and Requirements; Education Facilities
Clearinghouse
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces a priority and requirements under the Education Facilities
Clearinghouse (EFC) program and may use one or more of the priority and
requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years.
Through this action, we intend to support the collection and
dissemination of best practices for the planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of
safe, healthy, and high-performing elementary and secondary education
facilities. Specifically, this priority and requirements will support
the establishment of a clearinghouse to help stakeholders recognize the
linkages between the school facility and three areas: Academic
instruction, student and community well-being, and school fiscal
health.
DATES: Effective Date: These priority and requirements are effective
August 12, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Rattler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6718 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Education Facilities
Clearinghouse program is to provide technical assistance and training
on the planning, design, financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-
performing elementary and secondary education facilities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131; 7243-7243b.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements in the
Federal Register on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27129). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priority and requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority and requirements, four parties submitted comments on
the proposed priority and requirements. We group major issues according
to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of
the notice of proposed priority and requirements follows.
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about whether the
initiatives proposed in the priority and requirements could be
maintained or
[[Page 41695]]
lead to change on a long-term basis. The commenter also suggested that
other variables affecting student achievement, such as inequality of
funding or the effect of the community on the school, should be
addressed in the priority and requirements.
Discussion: We believe that the proposal to award a grant under
this program for multiple years will help sustain the effort to support
the collection and dissemination of best practices for the planning,
design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-performing elementary and
secondary education facilities. By providing support to help increase
the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs), the
priority will help support long-term change in these specific areas by
increasing the knowledge and skills that education providers have to
support effective improvements to their facilities. We provide funding
and support through other programs, such as Title I, Part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title I) to
help meet the additional needs of disadvantaged students and to support
parent and community engagement. For example, Title I targets more than
$13.7 billion in resources to LEAs and schools with high numbers or
percentages of children from low-income families to provide additional
services that improve the teaching and learning of educationally at-
risk children to help ensure they meet State academic standards. In
order to receive Title I funds, LEAs are required under ESEA to ensure
that their Title I schools, which tend to be those with the highest
poverty levels, receive resources from local and State sources that are
comparable to those received by non-Title I schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended we specify in the notice of
final priority and requirements the designations of the priority as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational.
Discussion: We appreciate these recommendations and have considered
them in developing the notice inviting applications for the fiscal year
2013 EFC competition. However, specifying a priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational in a notice of final priority
commits the Department to using the priority that way in all future
competitions. In order to preserve our ability to use this priority as
needed and to better serve States and LEAs, we are not specifying in
this notice of final priority and requirements whether the priority is
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. We do so in the
notice inviting applications for the 2013 competition, published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we add specific
qualifications that a successful applicant funded under the EFC program
should have beyond the educational sector, namely expertise in
recognizing and disseminating information about specific definitions of
high-performance buildings identified in the Energy Independence and
Security Act, securing connections to relevant professional societies
and other key stakeholders, executing a complex outreach and engagement
program, managing a robust Web site, and influencing decision makers.
Discussion: We appreciate the importance of the EFC provider having
expertise in specific areas; however, we decline to require more
specific qualifications that an applicant must meet in order to be
eligible for funding. Because the EFC will have to disseminate
information on a range of facilities topics, we do not want to limit
specific areas in which the grantee must have knowledge. In addition,
some of the qualifications recommended by the commenter, namely the
ability to execute outreach and engagement programs and manage a Web
site, may be evaluated through selection criteria for this program.
Finally, the purpose of the EFC is to disseminate information on
facilities and provide assistance to facilities managers; and
specifically influencing decision makers is beyond the scope of this
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EFC should provide balanced
information on best practices for school safety and security and school
facilities. The commenter emphasized that it is important for school
staff to be able to make informed choices about school facilities.
Discussion: In the notice of proposed priority and requirements, we
included a requirement that an applicant for the EFC grant must have a
plan to track and compile research and best practices, as well as
develop resources that support safe, healthy, and high-performing
school facilities. In addition, this grant will be a cooperative
agreement, which will allow us to work with the grantee to ensure that
the resources presented are supported by evidence, comprehensive, and
balanced. These resources will help support education stakeholders in
making informed decisions about improvements to school facilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we establish an absolute
priority requiring the grantee to collect and disseminate information
on Green Schools. The commenter indicated that having an absolute
priority would help ensure alignment between the ED-Green Ribbon
Schools program and the EFC program and maximize the use of limited
resources.
Discussion: We agree that providing information to support the
maintenance and creation of Green Schools is important, and we envision
that Green Building may be one area in which the EFC may provide
technical assistance, training, and products. However, there are
numerous organizations that provide information to support the adoption
of green practices in schools. Since this information is already
provided by many organizations and because we have limited funds to
provide support for improving educational facilities, we do not believe
that including a priority on Green Schools would be the most effective
use of these funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we expand the work of the
EFC to include both collecting and analyzing data about the state of
elementary and secondary school facilities and publishing these
analyses so that they can inform research on the relationship between
school facilities and school quality.
Discussion: We understand that there is a need for data to support
additional research on the effect of school facilities on a number of
elements related to student learning; however, the central purpose of
the EFC grant is to provide technical assistance and training on the
planning, design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement,
operation, and maintenance of elementary and secondary school
facilities. Toward this end, the EFC may provide links to appropriate
collections of this information, or develop briefs summarizing what
research and statistics currently exist. However, with limited funds,
we cannot support original data collection and analysis, especially if
the collection and analysis are duplicative of what currently exists.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the important balance
between student safety and creating a learning environment that
supports trust and collaboration. The commenter recommended that we
include language to support this balance in the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the importance of the EFC provider
[[Page 41696]]
understanding the various aspects of, and the links between, the
school's physical environment and the creation of a learning
environment that supports safety and nurtures trust and collaboration.
We believe that we have included language that supports the balance
between student safety and creating a learning environment that
supports trust and collaboration. Specifically, through the priority
and requirements, we have included specifications that the EFC should
disseminate research and best practices. We consider facilities that
serve to keep students secure, while supporting a nurturing
environment, to be an example of best practice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Web site created by the
EFC should include tools to facilitate interaction between site
visitors. The commenter specifically recommended using blogs or forums
to support interaction.
Discussion: We envision that the Web site created by the EFC
grantee may support a number of resources and services to encourage
interaction between site visitors. However, we do not want to be overly
prescriptive about the specific functions of the Web site, which would
inhibit applicant flexibility to propose and build a site that fulfills
the goals of the EFC.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern over the training
requirements for the EFC grantee. One commenter recommended that the
requirement to provide trainings be changed to an invitational priority
so that the grantee could focus on resource collection and
dissemination. This commenter also pointed out that an entity that is
highly skilled at collecting and disseminating information on school
facilities may not be very skilled at providing technical assistance
and training. Other commenters stated that by holding only two
trainings per year, the EFC grantee would not be able to provide
services to a large number of schools that need assistance with their
facilities. One commenter recommended that the trainings occur more
than twice a year, be open to all stakeholders, and include a follow-up
component to ensure that trainees can effectively implement the
practices they learned.
Discussion: We believe that training is an important component of
the EFC grant because it is essential that the resources collected and
disseminated by the EFC also have practical application. Providing
training helps ensure that the resources selected by the EFC support
the work of school administrators and should be a mandatory component
of a project. Therefore, we decline to change requirement 3 to an
invitational priority.
Although requirement 3 states that the EFC grantee must conduct a
minimum of two trainings per year, this does not limit the grantee to
this minimum. With regard to the comment about the training audience,
we recognize that training could be a very valuable tool for all
education stakeholders; however, this grant program provides a limited
amount of funding and likely cannot support training for potentially
thousands of education stakeholders. We believe that the most effective
use of resources is to focus training on those individuals in
leadership positions who can use their training to effect change for a
large number of schools.
Finally, while we recognize that follow-up activities would be
valuable to support the lessons taught at the training sessions, we do
not want to be too prescriptive about the specific structure of these
trainings. Detailed requirements for training provided by the EFC will
be established in the EFC's cooperative agreement with the Department.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Establishment of the Clearinghouse
Establish a Clearinghouse to collect and disseminate research and
other information on effective practices regarding the planning,
design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-performing facilities for
elementary and secondary schools in order to--
(a) Help education stakeholders increase their use of education
facilities to turn around low-performing schools and close academic
achievement gaps;
(b) Increase understanding of how education facilities affect
community health and safety and student achievement;
(c) Identify potential cost-saving opportunities through
procurement, energy efficiency, and preventative maintenance;
(d) Increase the use of education facilities and outdoor spaces as
instructional tools and community centers (e.g., outdoor classrooms,
school gardens, school-based health centers); and
(e) Increase capacity to identify hazards and conduct vulnerability
assessments, and, through facility design, increase safety against
hazards, natural disasters, and intruders.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces the following requirements for this program. We may apply one
or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Requirement 1--Establish and Maintain a Web Site
An applicant must include in its application a plan to establish
and maintain a dedicated, easily-accessible Web site that will include
electronic resources (e.g., links to published articles and research)
about the planning, design, financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-
performing facilities for elementary and secondary schools. The Web
site must be established within 120 days of receipt of the award and
must be maintained for the duration of the project.
Requirement 2--Track and Compile Best Practices and Develop Resource
Materials
An applicant must include in its application a plan to track and
compile best practices at the State, LEA, and school levels and a plan
to develop resources that support the planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of
safe, healthy, and
[[Page 41697]]
high-performing facilities for elementary and secondary schools.
Requirement 3--Training
An applicant must include in its application a plan to develop and
conduct at least two training programs per year for individuals in
leadership positions (such as business or operations managers) in
elementary or secondary schools or LEAs, who are responsible for the
construction and or maintenance of elementary and secondary education
facilities. Training topics must include information on the planning,
design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of education facilities in order to improve the
capacity of elementary and secondary schools or LEAs to make quality
decisions regarding safe, healthy, and high-performing elementary and
secondary education facilities. Training must be conducted upon request
by the Department, elementary and secondary schools, States, or LEAs,
and must be conducted by appropriate Clearinghouse staff or
contractors.
Requirement 4--Technical Assistance
An applicant must include in its application a plan to provide
technical assistance, including a plan for providing on-site technical
assistance to elementary schools, secondary schools, or LEAs, about
issues related to the planning, design, financing, procurement,
construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of education
facilities. The technical assistance may be provided in the form of
electronic or telephone assistance when requested by these schools,
LEAs, or the Department. On-site technical assistance visits will be
conducted upon request by, or based on input from, the Department,
elementary schools, secondary schools, or LEAs and must be completed
using appropriate Clearinghouse staff or contractors. The Department
must approve in advance all technical assistance visits.
The technical assistance must consist of consultation regarding the
planning, design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement,
operation, and maintenance of education facilities. Specific technical
assistance topics may include information related to: assessing
facilities and construction plans for energy efficiency; conducting
vulnerability assessments; and developing written plans to retrofit
education facilities to address identified hazards and security
concerns. Technical assistance may also address low-cost measures that
can be taken to enhance the safety and security of schools.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority or one or more of these
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing this final priority and these requirements, only on
a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have determined, also, that this regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
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.
[[Page 41698]]
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: July 8, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-16668 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P