[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8704-8709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3404]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 community-wide 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1fad0c3d4df9ff5dec3c2d4c8f1d4d59fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="662d071403084822091415031f26030248010910">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efa48e9d8a81c1ab809d9c8a96af8a8bc1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f644e5d4a41016b405d5c4a566f4a4b01484059">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> Element One--Safe School Environments and Violence 
Prevention Activities.
    <bullet> Element Two--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention 
Activities.
    <bullet> Element Three--Student Behavioral, Social, and Emotional 
Supports.
    <bullet> Element Four--Mental Health Services.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 8706]]

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: Program-Specific 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 program-specific 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 8708]]

    (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 evidence-based 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

[[Page 8709]]

requirement that applicants submit a MOA for mental health services. 
Also, we are proposing fewer program-specific 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 sub-criteria 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 e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16595f4457495259555d534256797b743873796638717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb8482998a948f8488808e9f8ba4a6a9e5aea4bbe5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a> 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 Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. E7-3404 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>