8704 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices 

with microcomputers and dial-up lines. 

Off-line storage is kept on disks. 

Records on magnetic tapes and hard 

copy data are kept in secured rooms or 

in locked cabinets for operator access 

and user pickup. Backup magnetic tapes 

are kept in a vault. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Records are kept alphabetically by 

Company and Class. Records can be 

retrieved from data base by selection of 

any data element, i.e., name, address, 

alpha code, six digit candidate number, 

or Social Security Number, etc. 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Visitor control. Records are kept in 

locked cabinets or in secured rooms. 

Computer records are safeguarded 

through selective file access, signing of 

Privacy Act forms, passwords, RAM 

systems, program passwords, user 

controls, encoding and port controls. 

Disk and tape storage is in a secure 

room. Backup systems on magnetic 

tapes are secured in fire proof vault in 

Ward Hall. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

On-line computer records are 

destroyed one year after the 

midshipman’s class graduates or the 

midshipman is separated. 

Performance records are retained by 

the Performance Officer for two years 

after the midshipman’s class graduates, 

and then destroyed. Backup systems on 

magnetic tapes and disks are kept in 

secure storage and destroyed two years 

after the midshipman’s class graduates. 

Files relative to midshipmen separated 

involuntarily, including by qualified 

resignation, are retained for two years 

after the midshipman’s class graduates, 

or three years from the date of 

separation, whichever date is later, and 

then destroyed. 

Official transcripts and records files 

are kept indefinitely by the Registrar on 

microfilm, computer files, magnetic 

tapes, and hard copy. A tape is sent to 

the National Archives two years after 

class graduates to be stored as a national 

disaster recovery measure. Electronic 

Admissions information is available via 

AIS for the class of 1999 to present. 

Electronic Admissions Applications are 

available via Automated Information 

System(AIS) for the class of 2009 to 

present. Counseling and Guidance 

Research data are kept by the 

Professional Development Research 

Coordinator indefinitely. Nomination 

and appointment files are retained for 

varying lengths of time. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, 

121 Blake Road, Annapolis, MD 21402–

5000. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

Individuals seeking to determine 

whether information about themselves 

is contained in this system should 

address written inquiries to the 

Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, 

121 Blake Road, Annapolis, MD 21402–

5000. 

Written requests should contain full 

name, company, class, and any personal 

identifier, such as a Social Security 

Number. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking access to 

information about themselves contained 

in this system should address written 

inquiries to the Superintendent, U.S. 

Naval Academy, 121 Blake Road, 

Annapolis, MD 21402–5000. 

Written requests should contain full 

name, company, class, and any personal 

identifier, such as a Social Security 

Number. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Navy’s rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Secretary of the Navy 

Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or 

may be obtained from the system 

manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Individuals, midshipman, 

supervisors, Registrar, instructors, 

professors, officers, midshipman 

personal history/performance record, 

midshipman autobiography, Record of 

Emergency Data (NAVPERS 601–2), 

Statement of Personal History (DD Form 

398), Aptitude History Record (Form 

1610–105), Midshipman Summary 

Sheet, Certificate of Release or 

Discharge From Active Duty (DD Form 

214), Military Performance Board 

Results, Letters of Probation, 

Midshipmen Performance Evaluation 

Reports (Form 54A), Medical Reports, 

Clinical Psychologist Reports, Excused 

Squad Chits (Form 6320/20), Conduct 

Card (Form 1690/91C), Letters of 

Commendation, Counseling and 

Guidance Interview and Data Records, 

Letters of Congressmen, parents, etc., 

and copies of replies thereto, transcripts 

from high school or prior college, 

Review Board Records, and Record of 

Disclosure (Privacy Act). 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

[FR Doc. E7–3304 Filed 2–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

RIN 1865–ZA04 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students 

AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Departments of 

Education (ED), Health and Human 

Services (HHS), and Justice (DOJ) issue 

this notice to propose priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions for the Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students (SS/HS) Initiative. We propose 

this action to focus Federal financial 

assistance on safe, disciplined, and 

drug-free learning environments and 

healthy childhood development. We 

intend the priorities to support the 

implementation and enhancement of 

integrated, comprehensive communitywide plans that create safe and drug-free 

schools and promote healthy childhood 

development. The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary may use these proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions for competitions 

in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

selection criteria, and definitions to 

Karen Dorsey, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3E336, Washington, DC 20202–

6450. If you prefer to send your 

comments through the Internet, use the 

following address: 

Karen.Dorsey@ed.gov. 

Please include the following in the 

subject line of all e-mails, ‘‘Comments 

on SS/HS NPP.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Dorsey. Telephone (202) 708–

4674 or via Internet: 

Karen.Dorsey@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation To Comment 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding the proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices 8705 

definitions. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions, we urge you to identify 

clearly the specific proposed priority, 

requirement, selection criterion, or 

definition your comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirements of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

selection criteria, and definitions. Please 

let us know of any further opportunities 

we should take to reduce potential costs 

or increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions in room 3E316 at 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday of each week except Federal 

holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid, such as a reader or 

printer magnifier, to an individual with 

a disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions. If you want to schedule an 

appointment for this type of aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing or funding 

additional priorities, other selection 

criteria, or other requirements, or 

changing definitions, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use these priorities, we will invite 

applications 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 

either (1) awarding additional points, 

depending on how well or the extent to 

which the application meets the priority (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the competitive 

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 invitational 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the invitational 

priority a competitive or absolute preference 

over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Discussion of Proposed Priorities 

Proposed Priority 1—Comprehensive 

Plan 

Background 

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students 

(SS/HS) grant program draws on the 

best practices of the education, justice, 

social service, and mental health 

systems to provide a continuum of 

activities, curricula, programs, and 

services designed to increase protective 

factors and reduce risk as an effective 

way to promote healthy child 

development and address the problems 

of school violence and alcohol and other 

drug abuse. 

Key to the SS/HS grant program is the 

creation and implementation of a 

comprehensive plan that addresses 

specific needs, gaps, or weaknesses in 

services, and builds on available 

resources and services. Creating and 

implementing the comprehensive plan 

allows an applicant to prevent youth 

drug use and violence, promote safe 

environments and prosocial behaviors, 

and provide for healthy child 

development. 

In previous years, the required 

comprehensive plan has included six 

elements. The proposed priority for the 

program has been revised to include five 

elements. We propose this change in 

order to reduce overlap between the 

required elements. 

Proposed Priority 1—Comprehensive 

Plan 

This proposed priority would support 

the projects of local educational 

agencies (LEAs) proposing to implement 

an integrated, comprehensive 

community-wide plan designed to 

create safe, respectful, and drug-free 

school environments and promote 

prosocial skills and healthy childhood 

development. Plans must focus 

activities, curricula, programs, and 

services in a manner that responds to 

the community’s existing needs, gaps, or 

weaknesses in areas related to the five 

comprehensive plan elements: 

• Element One—Safe School 

Environments and Violence Prevention 

Activities. 

• Element Two—Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Other Drug Prevention Activities. 

• Element Three—Student 

Behavioral, Social, and Emotional 

Supports. 

• Element Four—Mental Health 

Services. 

• Element Five—Early Childhood 

Social and Emotional Learning 

Programs. 

Proposed Priority 2—LEAs That Have 

Not Previously Received a Grant or 

Services Under the Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students Initiative 

Background 

In recent fiscal years, we have limited 

eligibility for SS/HS grants to LEAs that 

had not previously received an SS/HS 

grant. We limited eligibility for awards 

in this way in an effort to maximize the 

opportunity for as many LEAs as 

possible to receive SS/HS funding. We 

now propose eliminating this absolute 

restriction on LEA eligibility, and, 

instead, propose to establish a priority 

for LEAs that have not previously 

received funding under the SS/HS 

program. We believe that this approach 

addresses the needs of LEAs that have 

not previously received SS/HS funding 

while still permitting prior recipients 

that need additional resources in order 

to fully achieve their goals to have an 

opportunity to compete for another 

award. We do not intend this change to 

apply to prior recipients of SS/HS grants 

that have a current active grant under 

the program. 

Proposed Priority 2—LEAs That Have 

Not Previously Received a Grant or 

Services Under the Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students Initiative 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would give priority to applications from 

LEAs that have not yet received a grant 

under this program as an applicant or as 

a member of a consortium. In order for 

a consortium application to be eligible 

under this priority, no member of the 

LEA consortium may have received a 

grant or services under this program as 

an applicant or as a member of a 

consortium applicant. 

Discussion of Proposed Requirements 

Background 

SS/HS applicants from prior 

competitions and former SS/HS grantees 

have suggested that we clarify or modify 

certain SS/HS application requirements. 

These include: eligibility requirements 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
8706 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices 

that prohibit former SS/HS grantees 

from reapplying for SS/HS funding; the 

requirement that an application include 

two memoranda in order to be 

forwarded to peer review; the use of the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) 

school locale codes to establish 

maximum funding amounts that 

applicants may request; and the limits 

on the amount of funds that grantees 

may use for certain project activities. 

We have carefully considered this 

input, and propose several new or 

modified program requirements. First, 

we propose eliminating the restriction 

on eligibility for former SS/HS grantees. 

We believe that in some instances, for 

example in the case of very large LEAs, 

additional resources may be required to 

fully implement their comprehensive 

plan and achieve their goals. However, 

to ensure that former SS/HS grantees 

that wish to apply for additional 

funding are targeting different school 

sites or target populations, we propose 

that LEAs that have previously received 

an SS/HS grant include the following 

assurance as part of their application. 

This assurance would state that the 

scope of work included in the current 

SS/HS application is new and that 

funding, if awarded, will not be used to 

sustain previously funded activities, 

curricula, programs, and services 

provided to a population served by the 

first SS/HS grant. 

We also propose changes in funding 

limits established for applicants. 

Previously, we used locale code 

designations from the NCES Common 

Core of Data to determine maximum 

award sizes. Because that approach has 

produced some unintended results, we 

propose using enrollment size in order 

to establish maximum grant award 

amounts. We believe that this approach 

better matches funding needs with 

maximum grant amounts. 

Instead of two memoranda of 

agreement (MOAs) that have been 

required in previous competitions, we 

propose that a single, preliminary MOA 

be submitted with the application. This 

preliminary MOA would be more 

general in nature than those required in 

previous competitions. We propose that 

the preliminary MOA must be signed by 

the authorized representatives of the 

LEA, the local public mental health 

authority, the local law enforcement 

agency, and the local juvenile justice 

agency—the required SS/HS partners. 

Because SS/HS projects for a 

consortium of LEAs often involve 

multiple local public mental health, law 

enforcement, and/or juvenile justice 

partners, we propose that applications 

submitted by a consortium be signed by 

the authorized representative for each 

LEA included in the consortium, and 

authorized representatives for the 

corresponding required SS/HS partners 

for each member LEA. We also propose 

that the preliminary MOA must 

demonstrate the support and 

commitment of the required SS/HS 

partners to implement and sustain the 

project. 

We propose that applicants include 

information in the preliminary MOA 

that supports the selection of the 

identified local public mental health, 

law enforcement, and juvenile justice 

partners. The preliminary MOA must 

name a core management team, 

comprised of senior representatives 

from the required partners, and detail 

how the team would support the project 

director in the day-to-day management 

of the project. The preliminary MOA 

must also describe how multiple and 

diverse sectors of the community, 

including parents and students, have 

been and will continue to be involved 

in the design, implementation, and 

continuous improvement of the project. 

Finally, we propose that applicants 

submit a logic model as an attachment 

to the preliminary MOA. The logic 

model, a graphic representation of the 

project in chart format, would identify 

needs or gaps with the corresponding 

goals, objectives, activities, partners’

roles, outcomes, and method for 

measuring outcomes for each of the SS/ 

HS elements. The core management 

team discussion and the logic model 

attachment would serve to clarify the 

roles of the SS/HS required partners as 

they relate to project planning, 

management, implementation, 

evaluation, and communication. 

We also propose that grantees be 

required to submit a final MOA. The 

final MOA would provide an 

opportunity for successful applicants to 

update and revise the information 

included in the preliminary MOA 

furnished with the application, 

including information about the 

selection of partners, updates to the 

statement of support and commitment 

provided by the required SS/HS 

partners, the final roster of the core 

management team, any needed revisions 

to the process for including multiple 

and diverse sectors of the community in 

project implementation, and the final 

logic model. We also propose that the 

final MOA include descriptive 

information about partner financial 

responsibility for services and other 

issues including quality, accountability 

and coordination of services. We 

propose that the final MOA must also 

detail the procedures to be used for 

referral, treatment, and follow-up for 

children and adolescents needing 

mental health services. The final MOA 

must also include an assurance that the 

local public mental health authority will 

provide administrative control and/or 

oversight of the delivery of mental 

health services. We believe that these 

additional requirements, when 

implemented, will increase the 

likelihood of project success. The final 

MOA must be signed by the authorized 

representatives of each of the required 

partners and be submitted 

approximately six months after the 

award is made. 

We also propose that grantees use at 

least seven percent of their grant award 

amount to conduct a local evaluation. 

SS/HS projects are unusually complex, 

and require a broad range of evaluation 

activities, including process, formative, 

and outcome evaluations in order to 

supply the information needed for 

effective management and project 

improvement. 

Finally, we propose to limit a 

grantee’s use of grant funds for costs 

associated with security equipment, 

security personnel, and minor 

remodeling of school facilities to 

improve school safety, to no more than 

10 percent of the total budget for each 

year. Expenditures for security 

equipment and personnel will have 

limited impact on school safety absent 

a comprehensive approach. 

Accordingly we propose the following 

requirements: 

Proposed Requirements 

Application and Eligibility. We 

propose that an applicant must meet the 

following requirements: 

Proposed Requirement 1: ProgramSpecific Assurance for Former SS/HS 

Grant Recipients 

For those LEAs that have received 

funds or services (or for those LEA 

consortia that include a member LEA 

that has received funds or services) 

under the SS/HS program, a programspecific assurance must be submitted as 

part of the SS/HS application. All 

participating LEAs in a proposed 

consortium project must sign this 

program-specific assurance. The 

assurance must state that the scope of 

work included in the current SS/HS 

application is new and that funding, if 

awarded, will not be used to sustain 

previously funded activities, curricula, 

programs, and services to a population 

served by the first SS/HS grant. 

Applications from prior SS/HS grant 

recipients (or from a consortium that 

includes an LEA that has previously 

received SS/HS funds or services) that 

do not include the program-specific 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices 8707 

assurance would be rejected and not 

considered for funding. 

Proposed Requirement 2: Funding 

Limits for Applicants 

We propose that an applicant’s 

request for funding must not exceed the 

following maximum amounts, based on 

student enrollment data. Specifically, 

we propose that the maximum amount 

an applicant may request for any of the 

project’s four 12-month budget periods 

would be: $2,250,000 for an LEA with 

at least 35,000 students; $1,500,000 for 

an LEA with at least 5,000 students but 

less than 35,000 students; and $750,000 

for an LEA with less than 5,000 

students; and that in applying these 

maximums, applicants must use the 

most recent student enrollment data 

from the National Center for Education 

Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of Data 

(CCD) as posted on the NCES Web site. 

In the case of consortium applicants, the 

maximum funding request is based on 

combined student enrollment data for 

the participating LEAs. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs schools not included in the 

NCES database and requesting grant 

funds that exceed $750,000 for any of 

the project’s four 12-month periods 

must provide documentation of 

enrollment data. 

Proposed Requirement 3: Preliminary 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

We propose that each applicant must 

include in its application a preliminary 

MOA that is signed by the authorized 

representatives of the LEA, the local 

public mental health authority, the local 

law enforcement agency, and the local 

juvenile justice agency—the required 

SS/HS partners. For consortium 

applicants, the preliminary MOA must 

be signed by each member LEA and the 

corresponding required SS/HS partners 

for each member LEA. Additionally, the 

preliminary MOA must: 

(a) Include information that supports 

the selection of each identified SS/HS 

required partner that has signed the 

preliminary MOA; 

(b) demonstrate the support and 

commitment of the required SS/HS 

partners to implement and sustain the 

project if funded; 

(c) name a core management team of 

senior representatives from the required 

partners, and clearly define how each 

member of the team will support the 

project director in the day-to-day 

management of the project; 

(d) describe how multiple and diverse 

sectors of the community, including 

parents and students, have been and 

will continue to be involved in the 

design, implementation, and continuous 

improvement of the project; and 

(e) include, as an attachment, a logic 

model (a graphic representation of the 

project in chart format) that identifies 

needs or gaps and connects those needs 

or gaps with corresponding project 

goals, objectives, activities, partners’

roles, outcomes, and outcome measures 

for each of the SS/HS elements. 

Applications that do not include the 

preliminary MOA signed by the 

authorized representatives of each of the 

required partners (the LEA, local public 

mental health authority, local law 

enforcement agency, and local juvenile 

justice agency) and the logic model 

would be rejected and not considered 

for funding. 

Proposed Requirement 4: Final 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

If funded, grant recipients must 

complete a final MOA. The final MOA 

must be signed by the SS/HS partners—

the authorized representatives for the 

LEA, the local public mental health 

authority, the local law enforcement 

agency, and the local juvenile justice 

agency. For consortium applicants, the 

final MOA must be signed by each 

member LEA and the corresponding 

required SS/HS partners for each 

member LEA. The final MOA must also 

include the following: 

(a) Information that supports the 

selection of each identified SS/HS 

required partner that has signed the 

final MOA; 

(b) any needed revisions to the 

statement of support and commitment 

for each of the required SS/HS partners 

to implement and sustain the project; 

(c) a final roster of the core 

management team of senior 

representatives from the required SS/HS 

partners, that clearly defines how each 

member of the team will support the 

project director in the day-to-day 

management of the project; 

(d) any needed revisions to the 

process for including multiple and 

diverse sectors of the community in the 

implementation and continuous 

improvement of the project; 

(e) a final logic model that identifies 

needs or gaps and connects those needs 

or gaps with corresponding project 

goals, objectives, activities, partners’

role, outcomes, and outcome measures 

for each of the SS/HS elements; 

(f) a description of each partner’s 

financial responsibility for the services 

that it will provide along with the 

conditions and terms of responsibility 

for those services, including quality, 

accountability, and coordination of 

services as they relate to achieving the 

goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 

project; 

(g) a description of the procedures to 

be used for referral, treatment, and 

follow-up for children and adolescents 

in need of mental health services and an 

assurance that the local public mental 

health authority will provide 

administrative control and/or oversight 

of the delivery of mental health services; 

and 

(h) any other necessary revisions to 

information furnished in the 

preliminary MOA. 

Proposed Funding Restrictions 

Proposed Funding Restriction 1: We 

propose that no less than seven percent 

of a grantee’s budget for each year must 

be used to support costs associated with 

local evaluation activities. 

Proposed Funding Restriction 2: We 

propose that no more than 10 percent of 

the total budget for each project year 

may be used to support costs associated 

with security equipment, security 

personnel, and minor remodeling of 

school facilities to improve school 

safety. 

Discussion of Proposed Selection 

Criteria 

Background 

The SS/HS grant program was created 

to provide Federal financial assistance 

to school districts and communities to 

promote ongoing partnerships as a way 

of enhancing and expanding their 

existing activities relating to youth 

violence prevention and healthy child 

development. Since the original 

competition in FY 1999, four additional 

competitions have been held (FY 2001, 

FY 2002, FY 2004 and FY 2005). Our 

experience with administering these 

competitions, including feedback from 

peer reviewers, applicants, and funded 

grantees, demonstrates the need to use 

program-specific selection criteria that 

will better identify applications for SS/ 

HS funding that are most likely to 

produce successful SS/HS projects. We 

believe these refinements will 

contribute to our on-going efforts to 

improve the initiative. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

We propose the following selection 

criteria for this program: 

1. Community Assessment 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

describes individual, family, school, 

and community risk and protective 

factors that relate to the five SS/HS 

elements and will be addressed by the 

project. 

(b) The extent to which the applicant 

describes student problem behaviors as 

they relate to the five SS/HS elements 

and how they will be addressed by the 

project. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
8708 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices 

(c) The extent to which the applicant 

identifies, in the project narrative and 

the logic model, needs and gaps related 

to the five SS/HS elements that are not 

addressed by current services and 

programs. 

2. Goals and Objectives 

(a) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative and logic 

model specify one or more goals for 

each of the five SS/HS elements, and the 

goals are clearly linked to the needs and 

gaps identified in the community 

assessment. 

(b) The extent to which the objectives 

identified in the applicant’s project 

narrative and logic model are 

measurable and linked to each of the 

stated goals. 

3. Project Design 

(a) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative and logic 

model propose activities, curricula, 

programs, and services that will address 

each of the goals and objectives of the 

proposed project. 

(b) The extent to which activities, 

curricula, programs, and services 

proposed by the applicant are evidencebased or reflect current research and 

effective practice, and are appropriate 

for the age and developmental levels, 

gender, and cultural diversity of the 

target population. 

4. Evaluation 

(a) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative describes a 

plan for regularly monitoring program 

implementation, and identifies process 

measures that the applicant will use to 

assess the quality and completeness of 

the activities planned under the grant. 

(b) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative and logic 

model identify outcomes that are clearly 

linked to the identified objectives and 

activities for the project, and specify 

how outcomes will be measured. 

5. Management 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

describes a management plan adequate 

to achieve objectives of the proposed 

program on time and within budget, 

including clearly defined 

responsibilities of partners, staff, and 

contracted service providers, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(b) The extent to which the applicant 

provides, in the project narrative and 

preliminary MOA, information about 

any preexisting partnership involving 

the required SS/HS partners, and that 

partnership’s accomplishments directly 

related to the five SS/HS elements. 

(c) The extent to which the applicant 

describes, in the project narrative and in 

the preliminary MOA, a core 

management team that is appropriate 

and adequate to achieve the project’s 

objectives and support the project 

director in day-to-day management of 

the project. 

(d) The extent to which the applicant 

describes, in the project narrative and in 

the preliminary MOA, how multiple 

and diverse sectors of the community, 

including students and families, have 

been and will continue to be involved 

in the design, implementation, and 

continuous improvement of the project. 

(e) The extent to which the applicant 

describes a plan to develop data systems 

that will be used to support decision 

making processes established for the 

grant, including the use of technology. 

6. Budget 

The extent to which the proposed 

budget and budget narrative correspond 

to the project design and are reasonable 

in relation to the numbers of students 

and staff, and the identified objectives 

to be achieved. 

Additional Selection Factor 

We propose to consider geographic 

distribution and diversity of activities 

addressed by the projects in selecting an 

application for an award. 

Proposed Definitions 

Several important terms associated 

with this competition are not defined in 

the statute. We propose the following 

definitions: 

1. Authorized representative—We 

propose defining the term authorized 

representative as the official within an 

organization with the legal authority to 

give assurances, make commitments, 

enter into contracts, and execute such 

documents on behalf of the organization 

as may be required by the U.S. 

Department of Education (the 

Department), including certification that 

commitments made on grant proposals 

will be honored and that the applicant 

agrees to comply with the Department’s 

regulations, guidelines, and policies. 

2. Local juvenile justice agency—We 

propose defining the term local juvenile 

justice agency as an agency or entity at 

the local level that is officially 

recognized by State or local government 

to address juvenile justice issues in the 

communities to be served by the grant. 

Examples of juvenile justice agencies 

include: juvenile justice task forces; 

juvenile justice centers; juvenile or 

family courts; juvenile probation 

agencies; and juvenile corrections 

agencies. 

3. Local law enforcement agency—We 

propose defining the term local law 

enforcement agency as the agency (or 

agencies) that has law enforcement 

authority for the LEA. Examples of local 

law enforcement agencies include: 

municipal, county, and State police; 

tribal police and councils; and sheriffs’

departments. 

4. Local public mental health 

authority—We propose defining the 

term local public mental health 

authority as the entity legally 

constituted (directly or through contract 

with the State mental health authority) 

to provide administrative control or 

oversight of mental health services 

delivery within the community. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions 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 regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this 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 regulatory action we 

have determined that the benefits of the 

proposed regulatory action justify the 

costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) 

Certain sections of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria for the SS/HS grant program 

contain information collection 

requirements already approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

1865–0004 (1890–0001). The 

Department does not believe the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria will change the current 

approved burden for 1865–0004 (1890–

0001). However, as required by the PRA, 

the Department is submitting 1865–0004 

(1890–0001) to OMB for a revised 

information collection clearance 

concurrently with the publication of 

this notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions. 

The current absolute priority for the 

SS/HS grant program includes six 

elements that an applicant’s 

comprehensive plan must address. This 

notice proposes to reduce the elements 

from six to five. While this notice 

proposes two new requirements, it 

proposes to eliminate a current 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices 8709 

requirement that applicants submit a 

MOA for mental health services. Also, 

we are proposing fewer programspecific selection criteria. The current 

approved information collection 

contains seven selection criteria with a 

total of 25 sub-criteria to which 

applicants must respond. We are 

proposing six selection criteria, with 

only 15 sub-criteria. All changes to the 

priorities, requirements and selection 

criteria are responsive to comments and 

suggestions we received from previous 

applicants and grantees. 

The proposed changes to the 

information collection do not change 

the estimated 26 hours needed to review 

the instructions, search existing data 

sources, gather needed data, prepare 

and review responses. The elimination 

of one of the elements in the absolute 

priority and the elimination of 10 subcriteria provide more than enough time 

for applicants to respond to new 

requirements (i.e., signatures on the 

program-specific assurance and 

completing a logic model). 

In this notice, we are proposing a 

priority for LEAs that have not 

previously received a grant or services 

under the SS/HS Initiative. To receive 

priority, applicants will be required to 

submit a program-specific assurance. 

This new information collection 

requirement is primarily cosmetic, as 

the application will include a form 

requiring the authorized representative’s 

signature for the applicant; for 

consortium applicants it would require 

the signatures from the authorized 

representative from all participating 

LEAs, but again, the elimination of the 

sub-criteria more than offsets this. 

The current approved information 

collection requires applicants to submit 

two different MOAs with the 

application. We are proposing that 

applicants be required to submit a single 

preliminary MOA with the application 

and a final MOA to be submitted post 

award. The proposed collection does 

require submission of a logic model, but 

this requirement adds little burden as 

the applicant need only present a subset 

of the narrative information in a chart 

format. 

If you want to comment on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements, send your comments to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer 

for U.S. Department of Education by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or 

by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may also 

send a copy of these comments to the 

Department contact named in the 

addresses section of this notice. 

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 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of the 

proposed Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

action for this program. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as other Department of Education 

documents 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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

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. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number: 84.184L Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students) 

Program Authority: Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 

7131); Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

290aa); and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 5614(b)(4)(e) and 

5781 et seq.). 

Dated: February 22, 2007. 

Deborah Price, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools. 

[FR Doc. E7–3404 Filed 2–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Publication of State Plan Pursuant to 

the Help America Vote Act 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 

254(a)(11)(A) and 255(b) of the Help 

America Vote Act (HAVA), Pub. L. 107–

252, the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) hereby causes to be 

published in the Federal Register 

material changes to the HAVA State 

plan previously submitted by Kentucky. 

DATES: This notice is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan Whitener, telephone 202–566–

3100 or 1–866–747–1471 (toll-free). 

SUBMIT COMMENTS: Any comments 

regarding the plans published herewith 

should be made in writing to the chief 

election official of the individual State 

at the address listed below. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

24, 2004, the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register the original HAVA State plans 

filed by the fifty states, the District of 

Columbia and the Territories of 

American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 69 FR 

14002. HAVA anticipated that States, 

Territories and the District of Columbia 

would change or update their plans 

from time to time pursuant to HAVA 

section 254(a)(11) through (13). HAVA 

sections 254(a)(11)(A) and 255 require 

EAC to publish such updates. EAC has 

not previously published an update to 

the Kentucky State plan. 

The submission from Kentucky 

addresses material changes in the State 

budget of its previously submitted State 

plan and, in accordance with HAVA 

section 254(a)(12), provides information 

on how the State succeeded in carrying 

out its previous State plan. the 

submission addresses material changes 

to the budget based on the amount of 

funds actually received by the state and 

not on the authorized amounts. The 

revised state plan gives a detailed 

description of how the State has met the 

requirements of Title III as supporting 

documentation for a certification filed 

with the EAC under HAVA 

§ 251(b)(2)(A). 

Upon the expiration of thirty days 

from February 27, 2007, Kentucky will 

be eligible to implement the material 

changes addressed in the plan that is 

published herein, in accordance with 

HAVA section 254(a)(11)(C). 

EAC notes that the plan published 

herein has already met the notice and 

comment requirements of HAVA section 

256, as required by HAVA section 

254(a)(11)(B). EAC wishes to 

acknowledge the effort that went into 

revising this State plan and encourages 

further public comment, in writing, to 

the State election official listed below. 

Chief State Election Officials 

Kentucky 

Ms. Sarah Ball Johnson, Executive 

Director, Kentucky State Board of 

Elections, 140 Walnut Street, Frankfort, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES