Thursday, 

April 1, 2010 

Part III 

Department of 

Education 

Emergency Management for Higher 

Education Grant Program; Notices 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
16624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Emergency Management for Higher 

Education Grant Program 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.184T. 

AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priorities and 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools announces priorities and 

requirements for the Emergency 

Management for Higher Education 

(EMHE) grant program. The Assistant 

Deputy Secretary may use one or more 

of these priorities and requirements for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010 

and later years. 

We intend these priorities and 

requirements to provide Federal 

financial assistance to institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) to develop, or 

review and improve, and fully integrate 

their campus-based all-hazards 

emergency management planning 

efforts. We intend grant awards under 

these priorities and requirements to 

increase the capacity of IHEs to prevent/ 

mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and 

recover from the full range of emergency 

events. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities 

and requirements are effective May 3, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara 

Hill, U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., room 10088, 

PCP, Washington, DC 20202–6450. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7860 or by e-mail: 

tara.hill@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: EMHE grants 

support efforts by IHEs to develop, or 

review and improve, and fully integrate 

campus-based all-hazards emergency 

management planning efforts within the 

framework of the four phases of 

emergency management (PreventionMitigation, Preparedness, Response, and 

Recovery). 

Congress appropriated initial funding 

for the EMHE grant competition in FY 

2008 following the tragic shooting at 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University in 2007. That and other past 

emergencies, such as the events of 

September 11, 2001, Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, and the tragic shooting at 

Northern Illinois University, reinforce 

the need for colleges and universities to 

prepare for the full range of emergency 

events that may affect their campus 

communities. The EMHE grant program 

provides funds to IHEs to establish or 

enhance an emergency management 

planning process that integrates the 

various components and departments of 

each IHE; focuses on reviewing, 

strengthening, and institutionalizing allhazards emergency management plans; 

fosters partnerships with local and State 

community partners; supports 

vulnerability assessments; encourages 

training and drilling on the emergency 

management plan across the campus 

community; and requires IHEs to 

develop a written plan for preventing 

violence on campus by assessing and 

addressing the mental health needs of 

students, faculty, and staff who may be 

at risk of causing campus violence by 

harming themselves or others. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities and requirements in the 

Federal Register on December 4, 2009 

(74 FR 63740). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities 

and requirements. 

Except for minor editorial and 

technical revisions, there is only one 

significant difference between the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

and these final priorities and 

requirements. Specifically, based on 

public comment, we have added an 

element to the priority that will require 

applicants to develop or update a 

written campus-wide continuity of 

operations plan that would enable the 

campus to maintain and/or restore key 

educational, business, and other 

essential functions following an 

emergency. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priorities and requirements, four parties 

submitted comments on proposed 

priority 1 and on the proposed 

requirements. No comments were 

received on proposed priority 2. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes, or 

suggested changes we are not authorized 

to make under the applicable statutory 

authority. In addition we do not address 

general comments that raised concerns 

not directly related to the proposed 

priorities or requirements. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities and 

requirements since publication of the 

notice of proposed priorities and 

requirements follows. 

Priority 1—Institutions of Higher 

Education (IHE) Projects Designed to 

Develop, or Review and Improve, and 

Fully Integrate Campus-Based AllHazards Emergency Management 

Planning Efforts 

Comment: One commenter observed 

that the EMHE notice of proposed 

priorities and requirements was 

published in the Federal Register in 

advance of the enactment of the FY 

2010 appropriation for the Department. 

The commenter referenced language in 

the Appropriations Committee Reports 

filed in the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the U.S. Senate 

concerning the funding provided for 

emergency management for institutions 

of higher education, including examples 

of activities (such as risk assessment, 

training, and the purchase of hardware 

and software) that might be funded with 

these appropriated funds. The 

commenter requested that the 

Department consider the language in 

these Congressional reports in 

establishing the final priorities and 

requirements for this competition. 

Discussion: We have reviewed the 

language in the Conference Report 

accompanying the Department’s 2010 

appropriations act, as well as the 

language included in the related House 

and Senate Appropriations Committee 

reports (House Report 111–220 and 

Senate Report 111–66, accompanying 

H.R. 3293, respectively). We believe that 

the EMHE grant priorities and 

requirements are consistent with the 

guidance provided by both the House 

and the Senate in these documents. 

Activities such as risk assessments, 

training, and the purchase of hardware 

and software are all considered 

allowable activities under the EMHE 

program. Accordingly, we believe that 

the final priorities and requirements are 

consistent with Congressional guidance, 

while offering applicants the flexibility 

to design and propose projects that 

incorporate a wide range of activities to 

address their institutions’ needs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed priority 

would not permit applicants to receive 

support for addressing any violent 

activity occurring on campuses. The 

commenter recommended adding a 

priority that would broaden the scope of 

the program to address any risks and 

threats that come under the jurisdiction 

of campus law enforcement and 

emergency managers, and that the 

program provide support for training 

and activities designed to address a 

broad range of campus problems 

including sexual assault, arson, robbery, 

harassment, simple assault, binge 

drinking, and drug use. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16625 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that IHEs face significant 

challenges in dealing with many forms 

of violent activity that occur on their 

campuses. However, the EMHE grant 

program is designed to provide support 

for initiatives in emergency 

preparedness for IHEs, and is not 

intended to address or prevent all 

discrete acts of violence. Mitigating 

violent activity may certainly be an 

outcome of an all-hazards approach to 

emergency management; however, the 

primary focus of EMHE is to assist 

campuses with planning for, responding 

to, and recovering from major 

emergencies and disasters. 

Given the relatively small amount of 

available funding for this program and 

the limited number of grants awarded 

under the EMHE program to date, 

providing a significantly broader focus 

for the program at this time would 

significantly reduce the ability of the 

program to meet its primary purpose of 

assisting IHEs in developing or 

enhancing their emergency 

preparedness capacity. 

We note that the Department also 

administers another discretionary grant 

competition that is intended to respond 

more directly to the concerns of violent 

behavior on campus. Specifically, the 

Grant Competition to Prevent High-Risk 

Drinking or Violent Behavior Among 

College Students (CFDA Number 

84.184H) provides funds to develop, 

enhance, implement, and evaluate 

campus-based and/or community-based 

prevention strategies to reduce high-risk 

drinking or violent behavior among 

college students. For additional 

information on this program please 

visit: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

dvphighrisk/index.html. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

element (7) in the proposed priority 

identifies students, faculty, and staff as 

individuals who pose a risk of violent 

behavior, but that others, including 

visitors to campus, also pose such a risk. 

The commenter suggested adding a 

priority addressing violence that is not 

related to mental health issues of oncampus individuals. 

Discussion: We acknowledge that 

violent acts can be caused by any 

number of different factors in addition 

to mental illness or other mental health 

issues. However, House Report 110–231, 

issued on July 13, 2007, in conjunction 

with the FY 2008 appropriations bill for 

the Department that initially included 

funding for the EMHE program, 

explicitly stated that funds for new 

awards for IHEs should be used to 

develop and implement emergency 

management plans for preventing 

campus violence (including assessing 

and addressing the mental health needs 

of students) and for responding to 

threats and incidents of violence or 

natural disaster in a manner that 

ensures the safety of the campus 

community. The language in the 

proposed priority is not intended to 

limit the ability of campuses to consider 

a broader range of causes of violent 

behavior; rather, we intend it to ensure 

that, at a minimum, all EMHE grant 

recipients consider the potential role of 

mental health issues in campus 

violence. The language in the priority 

links the issue of identifying and 

addressing mental health issues with 

students, staff, and faculty because there 

are members of a campus community 

who may be able to observe warning 

signs and symptoms of mental health 

issues in these populations and use 

systems established by the IHE to 

initiate assessments or other appropriate 

procedures. IHEs cannot be expected to 

develop and maintain similarly 

comprehensive procedures for all shortterm visitors to the campus setting. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that funding under this program be 

available to establish a police agency on 

campus. 

Discussion: While we recognize that 

many IHEs need to establish or support 

police or security forces on their 

campuses, we believe that this activity 

is outside the scope of this grant 

program. This program is designed to 

provide support for emergency 

management and overall preparedness 

initiatives for IHEs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that rather than requiring applicants to 

respond to a prescriptive list of 

priorities and requirements, the 

Department should allow applicants to 

submit applications that propose 

individual approaches consistent with 

their institution’s unique needs and 

emergency management challenges. In 

particular, the commenter 

recommended that the language related 

to infectious disease planning (proposed 

priority element number (6)) and mental 

health needs of campuses (proposed 

priority element number (7)) be 

modified to allow institutions to 

propose individual solutions based on 

differing institutional needs and 

capacities. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that applicants should have 

the flexibility to design EMHE projects 

that respond to the unique needs of each 

campus. We believe the priorities are 

written in a way that will provide 

applicants with a significant amount of 

flexibility in identifying and addressing 

specific vulnerabilities and hazards that 

may be unique to each institution. 

However, in administering this 

program, we seek to balance this needed 

flexibility with the need to ensure that 

IHEs receiving support under the 

program are addressing at least a core 

set of hazards that we have identified as 

important to the Federal interest. The 

core list of hazards includes those 

related to infectious diseases and the 

mental health needs of students, staff, 

and faculty who may be at risk of 

causing violence on campus. 

Under this priority, IHEs still retain 

the flexibility to identify and address 

any unique emergency management 

issues or hazards identified as part of 

their vulnerability assessment. Further, 

eligibility for an EMHE grant is not 

affected for IHEs that have already 

addressed the required hazards or 

vulnerabilities identified by the 

Department before receiving a grant. 

Those entities need only commit to 

review emergency management plans 

for these required vulnerabilities during 

the grant period and to updating those 

plans as dictated by any relevant 

advances in the field or changes in local 

needs or concerns. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revisit our method for 

categorizing applicant institutions based 

on size. The commenter suggested that 

the categories used in the 2008 EMHE 

application enabled many relatively 

small institutions to be included in the 

‘‘large’’ category, thereby enabling 

‘‘small’’ institutions to request the same 

estimated funding level the Department 

identified for ‘‘large’’ institutions. The 

commenter recommended that 

additional funding tiers be established 

and that a specific category for very 

large institutions be created. 

Discussion: We agree that changing 

the method for categorizing institutions 

by size would help to better align 

recommended funding amounts with 

institutional needs. We considered this 

comment, and our experience in 

implementing this program over the 

past two years, and for the FY 2010 

competition we will change the method 

for establishing recommended grant 

award amounts. The new approach 

relies on student enrollment 

information (instead of number of 

facilities per campus) and establishes a 

category for very large institutions. 

Because IHEs are diverse entities that 

face a broad range of different 

challenges in the emergency 

management arena, we have elected not 

to establish through this notice of final 

priorities and requirements enforceable 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
16626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

maximum grant award amounts for 

categories of IHEs. Instead, we are 

including revised recommended grant 

award amounts in the notice inviting 

applications (NIA) for the EMHE 

program. We believe that this approach 

will provide appropriate flexibility for 

IHEs to develop projects that are of a 

scope that meets their unique 

emergency management needs while 

still providing helpful information for 

applicants about the approximate 

project scope and grant award sizes that 

we anticipate supporting. 

Changes: No changes are being made 

to the final priorities and requirements. 

The change in the categorization of 

institutions described in the preceding 

paragraphs is reflected in the notice 

inviting applications for this 

competition, published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended two changes to the 

proposed priority that would further 

emphasize the importance of continuity 

planning and the restoration of a 

learning environment following an 

emergency. The commenter requested 

that language be added to both proposed 

priority elements (1) and (4) to 

specifically emphasize the importance 

of continuity planning. 

Discussion: We agree that ensuring 

that institutions have a plan for 

continuing to provide key services (for 

example education, payroll, health 

support, and food services) following an 

emergency is a critical concern for the 

higher education community. The 

Department has worked with local 

school districts and IHE campuses over 

the past several years to help them 

strategize on ways to restore the 

learning environment following an 

emergency. Particularly following 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and given 

the recent influenza pandemic, we have 

been actively involved in developing 

resources to assist educational 

institutions at all levels in their 

continuity planning efforts. 

We agree with the commenter that 

planning for the continuation of 

educational and other services following 

an emergency should be included as a 

component in an IHE’s emergency 

management planning efforts, and will 

revise the priority to reflect this 

emphasis. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

by adding an additional element that 

will require applicants to develop or 

update a written campus-wide 

continuity of operations plan that would 

enable the campus to maintain and/or 

restore key educational, business, and 

other essential functions as quickly as 

possible following an emergency. 

Requirements for Partner Agreements 

and Completed Memoranda of 

Agreements 

Comment: One commenter observed 

that the capacity of law enforcement 

and mental health entities varies greatly 

from one community and one 

institution to another. For example, in 

one community the IHE law 

enforcement agency may be the primary 

emergency services provider for the 

community-at-large, whereas in another 

community the IHE may be largely or 

completely dependent on the local or 

State police departments for emergency 

services. The commenter observed that 

it may not always be appropriate for an 

IHE to have a partner agreement with 

the local law enforcement agency or a 

local mental health provider, 

particularly when the campus itself is 

the primary provider of emergency law 

enforcement or mental health services. 

The commenter recommended that an 

IHE not be required to enter into 

agreements with community-based law 

enforcement and mental health entities 

if the IHE is responsible for furnishing 

its own services in these areas. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that there is tremendous 

diversity in the size and location of IHEs 

across the country and that IHEs have 

various levels of institutional capacity 

to respond to emergencies within their 

communities. We also acknowledge that 

in some situations it is an employee or 

agent of the IHE who is the lead 

incident commander and who 

ultimately assists local or State partners 

in their response activities. 

The EMHE requirements are not 

intended to prescribe what the 

appropriate role and relationships 

should be between an IHE and its 

community partners. Instead, the 

requirements are designed to help foster 

communication and the establishment 

of relationships between the various 

potential responders to any incident, 

and to ensure that those relationships 

are established and solidified before any 

emergency event occurs. We expect that 

the roles and responsibilities articulated 

in both the partner agreements and the 

memoranda of agreements will vary 

greatly based on the relationship 

between each applicant IHE and its 

surrounding community. Our intent in 

proposing the requirement is to ensure 

that IHEs and their surrounding 

community partners are communicating 

with each other and coordinating their 

efforts, and not to prescribe what those 

efforts or relationships should entail. 

Further, the requirements to establish 

partner agreements and memoranda of 

understanding are not intended to limit 

the roles an IHE may perform in a 

community response. Rather, the 

requirements are intended to ensure that 

all grantees ultimately establish solid 

working relationships with their key 

partners and that they know what the 

various roles and responsibilities of 

each partner (including the IHE) might 

be in the event of an emergency. An 

application from a campus where the 

applicant IHE serves as the primary 

emergency services provider for the 

local community should indicate that in 

its partner agreements. It is the 

demonstration and documentation of an 

established and ongoing relationship 

that is key to these requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter identified 

the recovery of indirect costs from 

EMHE grants as a concern because these 

costs do not support direct project 

activities. The commenter also 

expressed concern that peer reviewers 

might find indirect cost rates for 

research institutions inappropriately 

high, which may have limited the 

number of research institutions that 

have been successful in receiving EMHE 

grants. The commenter suggested that 

we should include a requirement that 

would limit the percentage of indirect 

costs that may be recovered from an 

EMHE grant. 

Discussion: Generally, the Federal 

Government permits grant recipients to 

recover indirect costs for costs 

associated with their federally funded 

grant projects. This recovery is typically 

based on a rate determined by a 

cognizant agency that takes into account 

the indirect costs involved in 

implementing grant activities. Costs in 

an indirect cost pool may include such 

items as utility costs, building 

maintenance services, general insurance 

costs, and the cost of staff who assist 

with administrative functions such as 

hiring, payroll services, or other similar 

activities. The indirect cost rate is 

determined through a process of 

negotiation with the institution’s 

cognizant agency and is designed to be 

an accurate reflection of the actual 

indirect costs associated with 

conducting programming at that 

institution. IHEs frequently are assigned 

several indirect cost rates as a result of 

the negotiation process; these rates 

reflect differences in indirect costs 

associated with different kinds of 

project activities. For example, IHEs 

may be assigned a rate for research 

grants, a rate for grants implemented at 

a facility other than a campus facility 

(for example, at a hospital or research 

laboratory), or a rate for other sponsored 

projects. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16627 

While recovery of indirect costs 

reduces the amount of funding that can 

be used to support direct grant 

activities, establishing a cap on indirect 

cost recovery that is lower than that 

permitted by an IHE’s negotiated rate 

means that the IHE will need to identify 

other grant or institutional resources to 

help pay for the indirect costs 

consumed by implementing an EMHE 

project. Establishing an arbitrary cap for 

indirect costs could affect an IHE’s 

ability to implement its EMHE project if 

the IHE does not have institutional or 

other resources to pay these indirect 

costs, and may make it impossible for 

some IHEs to compete for or accept an 

EMHE grant. 

Because EMHE projects are not 

research projects, we do not permit 

EMHE grantees to recover indirect costs 

at the higher established research 

project rate. Typically, applicants for 

the EMHE program request recovery of 

costs based on the indirect cost rate for 

other on-campus programs, or other 

sponsored programs, at their IHE. 

The issue of indirect costs is not an 

issue that peer reviewers evaluate when 

they read and score an application. The 

selection criteria used for the EMHE 

competition do not include any criteria 

that require peer reviewers to evaluate 

the adequacy or reasonableness of the 

grant budget proposed by the applicant. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities: 

These priorities are: 

Priority 1—Institutions of Higher 

Education (IHE) Projects Designed to 

Develop, or Review and Improve, and 

Fully Integrate Campus-Based AllHazards Emergency Management 

Planning Efforts 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools establishes 

a priority that supports IHE projects 

designed to develop, or review and 

improve, and fully integrate campusbased all-hazards emergency 

management planning efforts. A 

program funded under this priority 

must use the framework of the four 

phases of emergency management 

(Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, 

Response, and Recovery) to: 

(1) Develop, or review and improve, 

and fully integrate a campus-wide allhazards emergency management plan 

that takes into account threats that may 

be unique to the campus; 

(2) Train campus staff, faculty, and 

students in emergency management 

procedures; 

(3) Coordinate with local and State 

government emergency management 

efforts; 

(4) Ensure coordination of planning 

and communication across all relevant 

components, offices, and departments of 

the campus; 

(5) Develop a written plan with 

emergency protocols that include the 

medical, mental health, communication, 

mobility, and emergency needs of 

persons with disabilities, as well as for 

those individuals with temporary 

special needs or other unique needs 

(including those arising from language 

barriers or cultural differences); 

(6) Develop or update a written plan 

that prepares the campus for infectious 

disease outbreaks with both short-term 

implications for planning (e.g., 

outbreaks caused by methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus 

(MRSA) or food-borne illnesses) and 

long-term implications for planning 

(e.g., pandemic influenza); 

(7) Develop or enhance a written plan 

for preventing violence on campus by 

assessing and addressing the mental 

health needs of students, staff, and 

faculty who may be at risk of causing 

violence by harming themselves or 

others; and 

(8) Develop or update a written 

campus-wide continuity of operations 

plan that would enable the campus to 

maintain and/or restore key educational, 

business, and other essential functions 

following an emergency. 

Priority 2—Priority for Applicants That 

Have Not Previously Received a Grant 

Under The EMHE Program (CFDA 

Number 84.184T) 

Under this priority we give priority to 

applications from IHEs that have not 

previously received a grant under this 

program (CFDA Number 84.184T). An 

applicant that has received services 

under this program directly, or as a 

partner in a consortium application 

under this program, would not meet this 

priority. Under a consortium 

application, all members of the IHE 

consortium must meet this criterion in 

order for the applicant to meet this 

priority. 

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: 

Partner Agreements: To be considered 

for a grant award, an applicant must 

include in its application two partner 

agreements. One partner agreement 

must detail coordination with, and 

participation of, a representative of the 

appropriate level of local or State 

government for the locality in which the 

IHE to be served by the project is 

located (for example, the mayor, city 

manager, or county executive). The 

second partner agreement must detail 

coordination with, and participation of, 

a representative from a local or State 

emergency management coordinating 

body (for example, the head of the local 

emergency planning council that would 

be involved in coordinating a large-scale 

emergency response effort in the 

campus community). Both agreements 

must include the name of the partner 

organization, an indication of whether 

the partner represents the local or State 

government or the local or State 

emergency management coordinating 

body, and a description of the respective 

partner as well as a description of the 

partner’s roles and responsibilities in 

supporting the EMHE grant and in 

strengthening emergency management 

planning efforts for the IHE. Each 

partner agreement must also include a 

description of the roles and 

responsibilities of the IHE in grant 

implementation and partner 

coordination. A signature from an 

authorized representative of the IHE and 

each of the two required partners 

acknowledging the relationship and the 

agreements must be included in the 

application. If either or both of the two 

required partners is not present in an 

applicant’s community, or cannot 

feasibly participate, the agreements 

must explain the absence of each 

missing partner. 

Applications that fail to include either 

of the two required partner agreement 

forms, including information on 

partners’ roles and responsibilities (or 

an explanation documenting that 

partner’s absence in the community), 

along with the required signatures, will 

not be considered for funding. 

Each consortium applicant (an 

applicant submitting on behalf of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
16628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

multiple IHEs) and any applicant 

applying on behalf of multiple 

campuses (including one or more 

satellite or extension campuses within 

its own institution or its consortium of 

IHEs) must submit a complete set of 

partner agreements with appropriate 

signatures from the authorized 

representative and the two required 

partners noted earlier for each campus 

proposed to be receiving services under 

its EMHE project. 

Although this program requires 

partnerships with other parties, 

administrative direction and fiscal 

control for the project must remain with 

the IHE. 

Completed Memoranda of 

Agreements: All IHEs supported by the 

EMHE program must use the grant 

period to create, or review and update, 

and sign, a memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) with each of the following four 

partners: local or State emergency 

management coordinating body, local 

government, primary off-campus public 

health provider, and primary offcampus mental health services provider. 

Each applicant under the EMHE 

program must include an assurance 

with its application that the IHE will 

establish these MOAs during the project 

period. MOAs must be completed for 

each campus to be served by the EMHE 

project. Completed MOAs will be 

requested at the end of the project 

period with the Final Report 

submission. 

Coordination with State or Local 

Homeland Security Plan: All emergency 

management plans created or enhanced 

using funding under this program must 

be coordinated with the Homeland 

Security Plan of the State or locality in 

which the IHE is located. To ensure that 

emergency services are coordinated, and 

to avoid duplication of effort within 

States and localities, an applicant must 

include in its application an assurance 

that the IHE will coordinate with, and 

follow, the requirements of its State or 

local Homeland Security Plan for 

emergency services and initiatives. 

Implementation of the National 

Incident Management System (NIMS): 

Each applicant must agree to implement 

its grant in a manner consistent with the 

implementation of the NIMS in its 

community. An applicant must include 

in its application an assurance that it 

has met, or will complete, all current 

NIMS requirements by the end of the 

grant period. 

Implementation of the NIMS is a 

dynamic process that will continue to 

evolve over time. In order to receive 

Federal preparedness funding under the 

EMHE program, each IHE must 

cooperate with the efforts of its 

community to meet the minimum NIMS 

requirements established for each fiscal 

year. Because the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

determination of NIMS requirements 

may change from year to year, an 

applicant must refer to the most recent 

list of NIMS requirements published by 

DHS when submitting its application. In 

any notice inviting applications, the 

Department will provide applicants 

with information necessary to access the 

most recent DHS list of NIMS 

requirements. 

Note: The responsibilities and procedures 

of any campus-based security office or law 

enforcement agency and the elements of the 

campus emergency management plan must 

be considered in conjunction with the local 

community’s emergency operations plan 

(EOP) and the capacity and responsibility of 

local fire and rescue departments, emergency 

medical service providers, crisis center/ 

hotlines, and law enforcement agencies that 

may be called to assist the IHE in a largescale disaster. IHEs’ participation in the 

NIMS preparedness program of the local 

government is essential in ensuring that firstresponder services are delivered in a timely 

and effective manner. Additional information 

about NIMS and NIMS implementation is 

available at: http://www.fema.gov/

emergency/nims/

ImplementationGuidanceStakeholders.shtm 

and http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/

index.shtm. 

IHEs that have previously received 

Federal preparedness funding and are, 

therefore, already NIMS-compliant 

should indicate that in the assurance 

form. 

Eligibility: To be considered for an 

award under this competition, an 

applicant must be considered an IHE, or 

a consortia thereof. An IHE, for the 

purposes of this competition, is defined 

as: an educational institution in any 

State that— 

(1) Admits as regular students only 

persons having a certificate of 

graduation from a school providing 

secondary education, or the recognized 

equivalent of such a certificate or 

persons who meet the requirements of 

section 484(d)(3) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended; 

(2) Is legally authorized within such 

State to provide a program of education 

beyond secondary education; 

(3) Provides an educational program 

for which the institution awards a 

bachelor’s degree or provides not less 

than a 2-year program that is acceptable 

for full credit toward such a degree or 

awards a degree that is acceptable for 

admission to a graduate or professional 

degree program, subject to review and 

approval by the Secretary; 

(4) Is a public or other nonprofit 

institution; and 

(5) Is accredited by a nationally 

recognized accrediting agency or 

association or, if not so accredited, is an 

institution that has been granted 

preaccreditation status by such an 

agency or association that has been 

recognized by the Secretary for the 

granting of preaccreditation status, and 

the Secretary has determined that there 

is satisfactory assurance that the 

institution will meet the accreditation 

standards of such an agency or 

association within a reasonable time. 

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 one or more of these priorities and 

requirements, we invite applications through 

a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this final 

regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this final regulatory action are those 

resulting from statutory requirements 

and those we have determined as 

necessary for administering this 

program effectively and efficiently. In 

assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this final regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the final priorities and 

requirements justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

final regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: 

We fully discussed the costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action in the 

notice of proposed priorities and 

requirements. After review, we 

determined that there will be no 

substantial additional costs to the 

grantee as a result of the addition of the 

new priority element related to 

continuity planning. An ultimate goal of 

the EMHE program is to decrease the 

resulting costs to IHEs in terms of lost 

resources, facilities, time, and 

causalities that may result from an 

actual emergency and the new priority 

element directly supports this goal. 

Further, the costs to support this 

activity may be included in an 

applicant’s proposed EMHE budget. 

Accordingly, the addition of this 

element to this final priority is 

determined to have no additional costs 

to the grantees. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16629 

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: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: 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 on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: March 29, 2010. 

Kevin Jennings, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7421 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

Overview Information; Emergency 

Management for Higher Education 

Grant Program; Notice Inviting 

Applications for New Awards for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2010 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.184T. 

Dates: 

Applications Available: April 1, 2010. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: May 12, 2010. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: July 12, 2010. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: EMHE grants 

support efforts by institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) to develop, or review 

and improve, and fully integrate, 

campus-based all-hazards emergency 

management planning efforts within the 

framework of the four phases of 

emergency management (PreventionMitigation, Preparedness, Response, and 

Recovery). 

Priorities: These priorities are from 

the notice of final priorities and 

requirements for this program, 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2010 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition, these 

priorities are absolute priorities. Under 

34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only 

applications that meet these priorities. 

These priorities are: 

Priority 1—Institutions of Higher 

Education (IHE) Projects Designed To 

Develop, or Review and Improve, and 

Fully Integrate Campus-Based AllHazards Emergency Management 

Planning Efforts. 

Under this priority, we support IHE 

projects designed to develop, or review 

and improve, and fully integrate 

campus-based all-hazards emergency 

management planning efforts. A 

program funded under this priority 

must use the framework of the four 

phases of emergency management 

(Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, 

Response, and Recovery) to: 

(1) Develop, or review and improve, 

and fully integrate a campus-wide allhazards emergency management plan 

that takes into account threats that may 

be unique to the campus; 

(2) Train campus staff, faculty, and 

students in emergency management 

procedures; 

(3) Coordinate with local and State 

government emergency management 

efforts; 

(4) Ensure coordination of planning 

and communication across all relevant 

components, offices, and departments of 

the campus; 

(5) Develop a written plan with 

emergency protocols that include the 

medical, mental health, communication, 

mobility, and emergency needs of 

persons with disabilities, as well as for 

those individuals with temporary 

special needs or other unique needs 

(including those arising from language 

barriers or cultural differences); 

(6) Develop or update a written plan 

that prepares the campus for infectious 

disease outbreaks with both short-term 

implications for planning (e.g., 

outbreaks caused by methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus 

(MRSA) or food-borne illnesses) and 

long-term implications for planning 

(e.g., pandemic influenza); 

(7) Develop or enhance a written plan 

for preventing violence on campus by 

assessing and addressing the mental 

health needs of students, staff, and 

faculty who may be at risk of causing 

violence by harming themselves or 

others; and 

(8) Develop or update a written 

campus-wide continuity of operations 

plan that would enable the campus to 

maintain and/or restore key educational, 

business, and other essential functions 

following an emergency. 

Priority 2—Priority for Applicants That 

Have Not Previously Received a Grant 

Under The EMHE Program (CFDA 

84.184T). 

Under this priority we give priority to 

applications from IHEs that have not 

previously received a grant under this 

program (CFDA number 84.184T). An 

applicant that has received services 

under this program directly, or as a 

partner in a consortium application 

under this program, would not meet this 

priority. Under a consortium 

application, all members of the IHE 

consortium must meet this criterion in 

order for the applicant to meet this 

priority. 

Final Requirements: These 

requirements are from the notice of final 

priorities and requirements published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. The following requirements 

apply to all applications submitted 

under this competition: 

1. Partner Agreements: To be 

considered for a grant award, an 

applicant must include in its 

application two partner agreements. 

One partner agreement must detail 

coordination with, and participation of, 

a representative of the appropriate level 

of local or State government for the 

locality in which the IHE to be served 

by the project is located (for example, 

the mayor, city manager, or county 

executive). The second partner 

agreement must detail coordination 

with, and participation of, a 

representative from a local or State 

emergency management coordinating 

body (for example, the head of the local 

emergency planning council that would 

be involved in coordinating a large-scale 

emergency response effort in the 

campus community). Both agreements 

must include the name of the partner 

organization, an indication of whether 

the partner represents the local or State 

government or the local or State 

emergency management coordinating 

body, and a description of the respective 

partner as well as a description of the 

partner’s roles and responsibilities in 

supporting the EMHE grant and in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2