Impact Aid Programs rule (2004)
| What is a significant rule? Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition. |
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
The Impact Aid Programs rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective April 14, 2004, that implemented the Impact Aid Discretionary Construction program. The program was authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act in an effort to provide grants to eligible schools for facility repairs and modernization.[1]
Timeline
The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:
- April 14, 2004: The final rule took effect.[1]
- March 15, 2004: The Department of Education published a final rule.[1]
- November 21, 2003: The Department of Education closed the comment period.[2]
- October 22, 2003: The Department of Education published a notice of proposed rulemaking and opened the comment period.[2]
Background
| Education Policy | |
|---|---|
| |
| Education policy topics | |
| • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development • Impact of school choice on rural school districts • Local school board authority across the 50 states • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools • School choice in the United States • School choice glossary
| |
| Other policy areas | |
| Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia |
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), directs states on assessments, reporting requirements, student assistance, and accountability measures. The NCLBA aimed to support standards-based education reform drawn from the philosophy that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals for schools would improve individual outcomes for public school students. The legislation mandated that states develop standardized tests and administer assessments to all students at certain grade levels in order to receive federal funding.[3]
The NCLBA authorized the Impact Aid Discretionary Construction program, which aimed to provide grants to eligible schools to fund facility repairs and modernization. The regulations governing the Impact Aid Discretionary Construction program were initially published on August 16, 2002, for the 2002 fiscal year grant competition. The Department of Education amended the 2002 regulations and issued a proposed rule on October 22, 2003.[1][4][2]
The regulations were amended following this rule by the Bush administration in 2008 and by the Obama administration in 2011, 2015, and 2016. The subsequent amendments were made to clarify and modify certain provisions in an effort to improve the administration of funds under the program.[5][6][7][8]
Summary of the rule
The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:
| “ | The Secretary issues these final regulations to implement the Impact Aid Discretionary Construction program, which is authorized under section 8007(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (the Act), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The program provides competitive grants for emergency repairs and modernization of school facilities to certain eligible school districts that receive Impact Aid formula funds. These final regulations incorporate statutory requirements and provide guidance for applying and qualifying for, as well as spending, the Federal funds provided under this program. These final regulations apply to the grant competitions after fiscal year (FY) 2002.[1][9] | ” |
Summary of provisions
The following is a summary of the provisions from the final rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]
| “ |
Section 222.172 What Activities May an LEA Conduct With Funds Under This Program? The proposed regulations detail the types of construction activities that recipients of emergency and modernization grants may conduct with grant funds. The regulations clarify that allowable repairs and improvements must be for educational facilities, and this does not include improvements to school grounds or teacher housing. These proposed provisions also clarify that both emergency and modernization grants may be used for new construction only if a local educational agency (LEA) holds title to an existing facility and the proposed construction meets the standards detailed in the regulations for determining that improving a current facility is less cost-effective than replacing it. Section 222.173 What Activities Are Prohibited? Proposed section 222.173 specifies the various types of activities that may not be supported with grant funds under this program. The statute prohibits using grant funds for acquiring real property but allows these funds to be used for the construction of a new building in limited circumstances. Since a building is also typically considered to be “real property,” the proposed provision clarifies, consistent with the authorizing statute, that grant funds cannot be used to acquire an interest in real property except when the Secretary determines under § 222.173 that construction of a new building will be permitted. Section 222.176 What Definitions Apply to This Program? The proposed regulations define the term “emergency” to include health and safety conditions that present an immediate threat to the building's occupants, as well as those conditions that will present health and safety hazards in the very near future, including accessibility for the disabled as part of a larger project. The proposed definition also provides examples of some of the types of health and safety conditions that the Secretary anticipates the emergency grants will address. The proposed provisions clarify that “modernization” grants must be used to repair, renovate, alter, or extend facilities in order to support a contemporary educational program that is consistent with the laws, standards, or common practices in the LEA's State. Since the Secretary anticipates that the need for these grants will exceed the amount of available funds, this provision clarifies that the Secretary does not intend for these grants to be used to fund facility modernization projects that exceed a State's standards. Sections 222.177-182 Eligibility The statutory eligibility criteria for emergency and modernization grants are complex and are further complicated by funding provisions that specify, in descending priority order, two emergency grant and two modernization grant eligibility categories. These proposed regulations provide details on each of the four eligibility categories so that applicants can determine under which funding priority their application will be considered. This will be particularly important for applicants to understand, because the statute mandates that the Secretary must first use available funds for applications in the first priority. After all eligible applications in the first priority have been funded, the Secretary considers applications in the second priority, followed by the third and fourth priorities in descending order. Sections 222.183-187 How To Apply for a Grant The statute does not specify a complete application process; the proposed regulations provide for an application that requests objective and subjective information that will be used to rank applicants. An applicant will also be required to agree to certain assurances that are contained in the application package. In addition, the Secretary, before making final award decisions, will request detailed data on the funds that the highest-ranked applicants have available to contribute to their proposed projects. The proposed regulations specify that the applications must be based on student and fiscal data from the preceding fiscal year, unless satisfactory fiscal data from that year are not available. The regulations clarify that an applicant may submit more than one emergency repair application for the same facility, and may also submit both modernization and emergency repair applications for the same facility. Emergency repair grant applications must include an independent certification of the health and safety concerns, signed by a local building inspector, a licensed architect, or a licensed engineer. Sections 222.188-194 How Grants Are Made The Department will review applications separately among the four funding priorities. Field readers will review the applications by category, based on the selection criteria and any other applicable factors that will be detailed in an application notice published in the Federal Register. Field readers will also evaluate and make recommendations to the Department as to whether emergency repair applications submitted under the first and second priorities represent valid health and safety considerations under the program definitions. Similarly, when field readers review modernization applications under the third and fourth priorities, they will evaluate and make recommendations to the Department as to whether those applications represent valid modernization considerations under the program definitions. Prior to making final funding decisions and determining final grant awards, the Secretary may verify certain data with applicants' States and will also assess available resources for all highly ranked grantees, limitations on the grant awards for certain grantee categories, and the availability of in-kind contributions. The Secretary considers as available to fund the project the closing capital fund balance identified in the LEA's audited financial report for the prior year, not including $100,000 or ten percent of the average annual capital expenditures of the applicant for the three previous fiscal years, whichever is greater. As detailed in the “Eligibility” portion of the proposed regulations, the Secretary will generally fund all eligible applications in the first application priority group before funding applications in each of the next three groups. This will vary if the remaining funds are insufficient to fund another project in the highest-priority group but adequate to fund a project in the next priority group. The next-ranked applicants in the higher-priority group will be offered the opportunity to accept funds for a portion of their projects before lower-priority projects are funded. If they accept the lower grant amount, they would forfeit the right to have their applications carried over and considered for funding in the next year's competition. However, they could submit new applications for the next year for the remainder of their projects. If they do not accept the lower grant award, the application is carried over and considered in the next year's competition.[9] |
” |
Significant impact
- See also: Significant regulatory action
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]
Text of the rule
The full text of the rule is available below:[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," March 15, 2004
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," October 22, 2003
- ↑ Josie Canales, James Frey, Cathy Walker, Sherry Freeland Walker, Suzanne Weiss and Anna West, Education Commission of the States, "No State Left Behind: The Challenges and Opportunities of ESEA 2001," accessed February 7, 2023
- ↑ Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," August 16, 2002
- ↑ Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," November 20, 2008
- ↑ Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," April 28, 2011
- ↑ Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," June 11, 2015
- ↑ Federal Register, "Impact Aid Programs," September 20, 2018
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
