(1) The procedures set forth in this section shall apply to:

(i) appeals pursuant to Education Law section 2853(3)(a-5) from:

[(i)] (a) final determinations of the board of education to locate or co-locate a charter school within a public school building;

[(ii)] (b) the implementation of, and compliance with, the building usage plan developed pursuant to Education Law section 2853(3)(a-3); and/or

[(iii)] (c) revisions of such a building usage plan, relating to a proposal for the collaborative usage of shared resources and spaces between the charter school and the non-charter schools, on the grounds that such revision fails to meet the equitable access standard set forth in Education Law section 2853(3)(a-3)(2)(B); or

(ii) appeals pursuant to Education Law section 2853(3)(e) from the city school district’s offer or failure to offer a co-location site or space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility upon a written request for co-location made by:

(a) charter schools that are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law to first commence instruction for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter; or

(b) charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter, and which are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law for those grades newly provided.

Since publication of a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on May 14, 2014, a nonsubstantial revision has been made to the proposed amendment as follows:

Section 276.11(b)(1)(ii) has been revised to clarify, consistent with Education Law § 2853(3)(e), the amendment’s applicability to appeals from the New York City School District’s offer or failure to offer a co-location site “or space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility.”

The above revision requires that the Needs and Benefits section of the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement be revised to read as follows:

3. NEEDS AND BENEFITS:

The proposed amendment is necessary to implement § 5 of Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014 by establishing procedures for an expedited Education Law § 310 appeal to the Commissioner for appeals from the New York City School District’s offer or refusal to offer a co-location site or space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility upon written request for co-location made by:

• charter schools that are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law to first commence instruction for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter; and

• charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter, and which are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law for those grades newly provided.

The proposed amendment enacts technical amendments to § 276.11 of the Commissioner's Regulations to provide for expedited appeals in the above instances pursuant to Education Law §§ 310 and 2853(3)(e).

Since publication of a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on May 14, 2014, a nonsubstantial revision has been made to the proposed amendment as described in the Revised Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

The above revision requires that the Compliance Requirements and Minimizing Adverse Impact sections of the previously published Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be revised to read as follows:

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:

The proposed amendment is necessary to implement § 5 of Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014, which became effective on March 31, 2014, and does not impose any additional compliance requirements beyond those imposed by the statute. The proposed amendment establishes procedures for an expedited Education Law § 310 appeal to the Commissioner from the New York City School District’s offer or refusal to offer a co-location site or space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility upon written request for co-location made by:

• charter schools that are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law to first commence instruction for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter; and

• charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter, and which are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law for those grades newly provided.

The proposed amendment enacts technical amendments to § 276.11 of the Commissioner's Regulations to provide for expedited appeals in the above instances pursuant to Education Law §§ 310 and 2853(3)(e).

MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:

The proposed amendment is necessary to implement § 5 of Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014 and will not impose any compliance requirements or costs on the State or local governments beyond those imposed by the statute. The proposed amendment is establishes procedures for an expedited Education Law § 310 appeal to the Commissioner from the New York City School District’s offer or refusal to offer a co-location site or space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility upon written request for co-location made by:

• charter schools that are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law to first commence instruction for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter; and

• charter schools that require additional space due to an expansion of grade level for the 2014-2015 school year or thereafter, and which are approved by their charter entity pursuant to Article 56 of the Education Law for those grades newly provided.

The proposed amendment enacts technical amendments to § 276.11 of the Commissioner's Regulations to provide for expedited appeals in the above instances pursuant to Education Law §§ 310 and 2853(3)(e).

Since publication of a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on May 14, 2014, a nonsubstantial revision has been made to the proposed amendment as described in the Revised Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

The proposed amendment, as so revised, relates to expedited appeals to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Education Law §§ 310 and 2853(3)(e) regarding New York City charter school co-locations. The revised proposed amendment is applicable to the City School District of the City of New York and will not have an adverse impact on rural areas or impose reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on public or private entities in rural areas. Because it is evident from the nature of the revised proposed amendment that it does not affect rural areas or public or private entities in rural areas, no further measures were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a rural area flexibility analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.

Since publication of a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on May 14, 2014, a nonsubstantial revision has been made to the proposed amendment as described in the Revised Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

The proposed amendment, as so revised, is necessary to implement § 5 of Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014, and relates to expedited appeals to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Education Law §§ 310 and 2853(3)(e) regarding New York City charter school co-locations. The revised proposed amendment will not have an adverse impact on jobs or employment opportunities. Because it is evident from the nature of the revised proposed amendment that it will have a positive impact, or no impact, on jobs or employment opportunities, no further steps were needed to ascertain those facts and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and one has not been prepared.

As a rule that requires a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2019, which is the 4th or 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted. This review period, justification for proposing same, and invitation for public comment thereon, were contained in a RFA, RAFA or JIS:

An assessment of public comment on the 4 or 5-year initial review period is not attached because no comments were received on the issue

The agency received no public comment.